PRIVATE BUSINESS

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill  [Lords] (By Order)
	 — 
	Canterbury City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Leeds City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Manchester City Council Bill  [ Lords ] (By Order)
	 — 
	Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 May.

Oral Answers to Questions

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Redundant Churches

Ben Chapman: What the policy of the commissioners is on redundant churches for which dioceses have found no alternative use.

Stuart Bell: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, may I draw the attention of the House to the Church Commissioners' excellent results for last year? The value of assets has grown to £5.67 billion, and £37 million more has been returned to the Church each year during the past decade. Those are figures of which the commissioners and the Church are justly proud.
	In response to my hon. Friend's question, the arrangements for settling the future of redundant churches are set out in the Pastoral Measure 1983.

Ben Chapman: To what extent will the commissioners and my hon. Friend take account of the views of Sir Roy Strong in his book "A Little History of the English Country Church" about the variety of uses that local communities would find of value to them in using redundant church premises?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Sir Roy Strong, whose work is closely followed within the Church. He is a renowned campaigner for making Church heritage live—not just preserving the heritage, but doing things with it. That is a concept with which we can all agree.
	On the essence of my hon. Friend's question, in most cases an alternative use is found for churches that have closed down, and where not, the commissioners have to decide, after consulting their statutory advisers, between preservation in the Churches Conservation Trust or demolition.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Elections (Turnout)

Simon Hughes: What additional measures the Electoral Commission has considered to increase public participation in elections.

Peter Viggers: In addition to its long-standing voter registration campaigns, the Electoral Commission in advance of last week's election piloted a text message response service, extended its face-to-face voter registration activity and undertook additional work with local authorities and community groups to encourage voter registration.

Simon Hughes: Clearly, something worked to encourage participation last week. It might have been the prospect of defeating Labour candidates—[Hon. Members: "You lost out."] Or other candidates—that is very true. Will the hon. Gentleman talk to the Electoral Commission about whether having as places to vote the places where most people go on voting day—railway stations, bus stations and shopping centres—is the logical thing to do, rather than making people go to places that, for many of them, are not on their beaten track, which means that many of them therefore decide to choose not to visit them at all?

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission has indeed carried out research on that general area, and rather than deal with the detail now I would prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know the overall package that the Electoral Commission has brought to bear on the issue and the extent to which it has piloted similar efforts. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and bring that to his attention.

Mark Lazarowicz: Although it is true that the Electoral Commission has run voter registration campaigns, we all know that there are millions of people in this country who are not registered to vote who ought to be registered to vote. The non-registration rate varies between perhaps 5 and 25 per cent. in some parts of the country. What can we do to get a much more effective voter registration scheme under way across the country, so that we get the millions who are not registered on to the register so that they can vote?

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission runs a three-week campaign in advance of every election to encourage voter registration. The commission has previously piloted a registration week, but its view is that a three-week campaign, rather than focusing activity on a single week or day, allows more flexibility for local authorities to participate and that the cumulative effect of advertising over a longer period generates a higher response. The Electoral Commission's main concern is that there should be individual registration. It thinks that that would encourage registration and diminish the risk of fraud.

Peter Bottomley: One of the ways in which participation is supposed to increase is by campaign spending by candidates. Will my hon. Friend please pass on to the Electoral Commission something that is a surprise outside the House as well as inside it, which is that in eight years the former Mayor of London apparently had no personal donations but they were all channelled through a political party, to the surprise of most who watched?

Peter Viggers: The rules on these matters are actually quite complicated; they overlap and the rules for regulated donees are different from the rules for candidates during the candidacy period. There is a specific question on this issue and if that question is reached, I will deal with it in some detail then.

David Chaytor: Is it not the case that the most effective way of increasing participation in any election is by having 100 per cent. postal voting? The hon. Gentleman will know that, after the parliamentary by-election on 22 May in Crewe and Nantwich, the next most important occasion in the electoral calendar this year will be 3 July when we hold a mayoral referendum in Bury. Will he raise with the Electoral Commission whether all mayoral referendums should be required to have 100 per cent. postal voting?

Peter Viggers: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that specific issue, I will indeed raise it with the Electoral Commission as he has requested.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that Members on both sides of the House appreciate that people fought and died to get the vote. Is it not about time that people took responsibility themselves? They are able to register and it is up to them to do so. Why should we always go out of our way to make it easy for people to do something when, if they believe that voting is important, not only will they register but they will go out and vote?

Peter Viggers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our predecessors who created the system of secret voting, with a possibility of tracing that secret vote in extremis, certainly knew what they were doing and developed a system that has enormous credibility and trust. Although the number of cases of fraud may be quite small, it takes only a small number of such cases to diminish credibility and trust, with a corresponding diminution in the value of our democracy.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the situation, such as that in Chorley, where registration in rented areas is always lower than anywhere else? Unfortunately, that does not show up because the figures are calculated on a macro-level and across council wards, which have a greater rate of registration at 70 or 80 per cent. However, the figure at a micro-level can drop to something like 30 per cent. What can we do to ensure that people in rented accommodation are treated equally to those in private accommodation?

Peter Viggers: One of the advantages that the Electoral Commission sees in individual registration is that it will pick up people who are not covered at the moment by the heads of households whose duty it is to register people to vote. That might be relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Electoral Fraud

Andrew Rosindell: What steps are being taken to reduce the potential for electoral fraud and inaccurate electoral registrations.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that it continues to issue detailed guidance and that it works with returning officers, electoral registration officers and the police on strategies for preventing and detecting electoral malpractice.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply but, in the light of the recent London elections and local elections, will he tell us what investigations and reviews the Electoral Commission is carrying out to ensure the integrity of the electoral process, particularly with regards to postal voting? That is of great concern to a number of people because fraud has taken place in recent and past local elections.

Peter Viggers: My hon. Friend may have seen a recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust into "Purity of Elections in the UK". It highlighted the fact that although fraud is not widespread, the system remains vulnerable. The commission is continuing to work hard with those who run elections and with the police to detect and deter fraud, but it also continues to call for the introduction of individual voter registration to make the system more secure.

Ann Cryer: Although I do not describe the practice as fraud, the widespread use of personal votes in very patriarchal communities disfranchises a lot of women because the head of the household will vote on behalf of the women in his house. Are the hon. Gentleman and the commission aware of that practice, which means that I am afraid I do not agree with the proposal to extend the postal vote?

Peter Viggers: The hon. Lady's point is one of the reasons the Electoral Commission is very keen to press the case for individual registration and for each individual—male or female—to accept responsibility for their registration and, indeed, their democratic right to vote.

Mark Field: Given the inaccuracies in the electoral register, is there not a special problem that is tied in with the inaccuracy of census data? There are now rather perverse but strong incentives for local authorities to keep names on the register inaccurately in order to qualify for larger central Government grants. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that issue is dealt with as part and parcel of the reforms that are urgently needed for the integrity of our electoral system?

Peter Viggers: Indeed, and in reply to an oral question on 20 March, I spelled out the Electoral Commission's concern about the inadequacy of data. It is not possible to measure turnout accurately because there is not an accurate list of those who are entitled to vote.

Kevan Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) that the way to increase participation at elections is to have all-postal ballots. Why has the Electoral Commission ignored its original report into electoral pilots in places such as the north-east, which resulted in a by-election in my constituency with a 67 per cent. turnout? It found that there was no great instance of fraud and that the pilots were a good way of increasing participation. Why did the commission retreat from that and possibly bow to the pressure of some of the popular press?

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission takes a balanced view on that. There are great advantages in postal voting. Its view is that the postal voting system should be improved and any possible fraud removed. Central to that is individual registration.

Supplementary Vote System

Adam Holloway: Whether the Electoral Commission has made an assessment of the effectiveness of the supplementary vote system used in the London mayoral election.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that it has made no such assessment.

Adam Holloway: Does my hon. Friend think there may be an argument for reforming the 5 per cent. threshold whereby extremist parties such as the British National party can gain seats with a relatively small number of votes?

Peter Viggers: The view of the Electoral Commission is that its role is to report on the administration of statutory elections in the UK and to provide information to electors on the way the electoral system works. However, it takes the view that it is the responsibility of the Government to promote and for Parliament to decide on the detail of the manner in which the vote is implemented.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Carbon Emissions

Norman Baker: What steps the commissioners are taking to reduce the carbon footprint of activities within their responsibility.

Stuart Bell: Within their own areas of responsibility, in 2007 the commissioners increased from seven to 18 the number of fuel-efficient hybrid-power cars provided to bishops, and they aim to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in diocesan bishops' houses and offices by 60 per cent. by the year 2050 in line with the Government's energy White Paper.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for that answer and encouraged to learn that action is being taken. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most important thing is to have an overall assessment of the carbon footprint of all the activities of the Church Commissioners and that they are all subject to a target for carbon reduction in line with the specific target that he referred to for housing?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will remember the answer that I gave him on 23 July 2007 in relation to the National Church Institutions being committed to the Church's shrinking footprint campaign. I am sure he would agree that there is a welcome conference taking place at Lambeth Palace on 13 May, when the Archbishop of Canterbury will host the first anniversary celebration of "Together", a climate change campaign that aims to make the practical things that everyone can do easier and more affordable. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the cause.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Candidates (Declaration of Donations)

Greg Hands: If the Electoral Commission will take steps to ensure that candidates for directly elected office declare donations made to them separately from donations made to their political party.

Peter Viggers: The rules on reporting donations by parties and candidates are set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The commission's role is to ensure compliance with those rules. The commission informs me that it publishes guidance for parties, candidates and agents, provides advice on request, and takes enforcement action in accordance with the Act if the rules are not followed.

Greg Hands: It is unacceptable that a candidate for, and the incumbent of, a directly elected office, particularly that of, for example, the elected mayor in London, do not have to declare donations, especially if that person is a sole-person planning authority meeting in private. We really must have transparency to see who is funding that person. I urge the Electoral Commission to have another look at that.

Peter Viggers: The rules for declaring donations overlap and are not consistent. Donations over £1,000 made to an individual in connection with political activities must be reported to the commission within 30 days of acceptance. Donations over the value of £50 for use by a candidate during the regulated period must be reported in the candidate's election expenses return. For the mayoral election in London, the expense return is due 70 days after the election result is declared. Meanwhile, donations over £5,000 received by a party must be reported in the party's quarterly donation report to the commission.
	Perhaps I may add that the commission received a number of complaints alleging a failure by Ken Livingstone to report donations in connection with the mayoral election. The commission concluded that there was no evidence of a breach of the donation reporting requirements.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Livings (Crown Patronage)

Robert Key: How many livings in the Church of England are under the patronage of the Crown; and how many of the incumbents of those livings are women.

Stuart Bell: There are approximately 650 parochial appointments in the gift of the Crown, of which patronage for around 450 is exercised on the Crown's behalf by the Lord Chancellor. In some cases, the patronage right is shared in turn with other patrons of the benefice; 103 of those appointments are held by women.

Robert Key: There is clearly still some way to go. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that it really is time that the Church of England stopped discriminating against 50 per cent. of the human race when it comes to episcopal appointments? Can he imagine this House finding it expedient to agree to any Measure from Synod that sought to discriminate against women, in the hope that it was going to allow women bishops in the Church of England—but not at any price?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will remember that this House voted almost unanimously, but certainly overwhelmingly, for women priests way back in 1992. Given that he is a member of the General Synod, he will know that in July it will look at the options for progressing the ordination of women as bishops, informed by the recently published report of the legislative drafting group, chaired by the Bishop of Manchester. This House—in its majority, I think—supports women bishops and we urge the Church in this case to make haste less slowly.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Migrant Domestic Workers

Anthony Steen: How many prosecutions and convictions there have been of employers of migrant domestic workers for offences associated with abuse of their employees in the last three years; and what steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to increase the rate of prosecution.

Vera Baird: The Crown Prosecution Service does not hold data on prosecutions and convictions for employers of migrant domestic workers for abuse of those employees. It has prosecuted 285 people in the last three years for employing people contrary to their immigration status, which is important because employees are of course more vulnerable if they are being employed unlawfully. The CPS continues to contribute to the development of early identification and referral mechanisms for victims of labour exploitation, in the hope of improving the rate of successful prosecutions.

Anthony Steen: I have met a number of domestic migrant workers—women—who have been savagely abused. They have been raped and beaten, they have no rooms of their own, they work seven days a week—in effect, they are on call 24 hours a day—and they are terribly paid. Some of them have been trafficked. Does the Solicitor-General agree with me that the Home Office's plan to change the domestic migrant visa so that it cannot be transferred from the single employer to another employer will actually drive trafficking underground and prevent those women from escaping the horrors of their domestic slavery, and that this Government are committed to doing something that will save those women, not make things worse? Will she say something about the Home Office's plans, which, if they come into force, will make matters very much worse for such women and very much better for the employers?

Vera Baird: I am not going to comment on a Home Office matter. However, I understand from ministerial colleagues that research and analysis are in place that should report this month—the hon. Gentleman probably knows that, given his role as chair of the all-party group on the trafficking of women and children—on the risks associated with the exploitation of overseas domestic workers, so that in due course, once we have proper research, we can consult on the overseas domestic workers route and how best to offer protection to exploited people.
	Recently—in April—there was a plea of guilty at Snaresbrook Crown court to facilitating a young girl's trafficking for domestic servitude; those involved will be sentenced on 16 May. There will be another prosecution in June, at Harrow, under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, concerning the exploitation of overseas domestic workers. So prosecutions do appear to be coming through.

Chris Bryant: But will the Solicitor-General take away the concern of the whole House and work with colleagues to make sure that there is a whole-Government approach to ensuring an end to the completely unscrupulous levels of servitude and exploitation by employers, which are on a mediaeval scale? Will she further try to ensure that Ministers introduce measures soon to make it more difficult for such employers to bring people into this country and undercut the conditions that ordinary British people would expect as only fair and just?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As he knows, the problem with prosecuting on behalf of exploited employees is the difficulty in getting those employees to come forward. We have to work hard on that. He knows that Operation Pentameter 2, which started last October, has a focus on labour-exploited people. There have been discussions involving the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which is likely to have the ability better to recognise unscrupulous gangmasters and to be involved in identifying cases. We are taking considerable steps to tackle the issue and all suggestions will be gratefully received on that basis.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to Question 10 to the Solicitor-General. Before I call the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) to ask his question, I remind him and other Members that the case involving the termination by the director of the Serious Fraud Office of its investigation into BAE Systems is sub judice and so should not be referred to directly.

Serious Fraud Office

Alistair Carmichael: What role the Law Officers play in decisions by the Serious Fraud Office on the conduct of legal proceedings.

Vera Baird: The Serious Fraud Office exercises its case work functions independently, subject to the statutory superintendence of the Attorney-General. This may include consultation on particularly difficult cases. For certain offences, including offences of corruption, the Attorney-General's consent is required by statute. She exercises that consent role as a Law Officer independently of Government, applying well-established principles of prosecution.

Alistair Carmichael: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and of course I accept absolutely your very proper direction. The House may wish to consider at some later date whether it is well served by a sub judice rule that is so wide in its application that we are the only people who are not able to question the conduct of Law Officers.
	Can the Solicitor-General give the House an assurance that there has been and will be no case under consideration by the Serious Fraud Office where she has intervened to prevent the advancement by the SFO of an argument in support of its position that could be politically embarrassing to the Government?

Vera Baird: The Liberal Democrats have ears to hear, but they never do hear when I say—I have already asserted this and I now repeat it for about the 50th time to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues—that the Attorney-General exercises a consent role when it is statutorily demanded of her, totally independent of Government interest. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, a series of proposals in the White Paper "The Governance of Britain" will look at all the issues that he wants to raise. It is absurd to suggest that there is no opportunity to question the conduct of the Law Officers because of course that is exactly what is going on now.

Fiona Mactaggart: As the Law Officers have responsibility for the prosecuting authorities, will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that they are advised to ensure that, in taking fraud cases, they do not always make the petitioner the big gun in the case, as it were? In my constituency, there is a case in which a small company was a victim of fraud, as were other companies. Because the case was taken with that of a big company—the major petitioner—the small company did not get its proper recompense out of the case. Will she advise prosecuting authorities to make sure that the way they conduct cases takes into account the vulnerability of the petitioners?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend, in characteristically defending the rights of her constituents, has raised the issue before. She makes the powerful point that a relatively small company, for which the victimisation in the case was very serious, was not able to get the sort of compensation received by the major protagonist, the big company. The Crown Prosecution Service well understands that point, which she has made well. We have received it and passed it on.

David Howarth: I am not sure whether the Solicitor-General answered the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). He asked whether the Government were proposing sufficient measures in the Constitutional Renewal Bill to guarantee the independence of the prosecuting authorities from the Law Officers. Who is responsible, as between the Law Officers on the one side and the director of the SFO on the other, for responding to the ridiculous suggestion that I gather has come from a certain quarter that there be a "legal review", whatever that is, of the uncompleted investigation into BAE Systems?

Vera Baird: I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about yesterday's "PM" programme, and about BAE senior management making some sort of proposal. It is likely that the new director of the Serious Fraud Office will respond to that, if indeed a response is merited. The position of the Law Officers vis-à-vis the director of the Serious Fraud Office is very clear. It is of course part of the constitutional renewal proposals that it should be made even clearer, and there should be a protocol, which will be a public document, to regulate the relationship between the two.

Crown Prosecution Service (Northamptonshire)

Philip Hollobone: What assessment she has made of the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service in Northamptonshire against its targets in the most recent period for which information is available; and if she will make a statement.

Vera Baird: I am pleased to say that CPS Northamptonshire is a high-performing area. All CPS areas are monitored every quarter against 15 key performance indicators, and the hon. Gentleman's own CPS is performing at or close to its target in 13 of those 15 areas.

Philip Hollobone: In congratulating the chief Crown prosecutor of Northamptonshire, Grace Ononiwu, on being awarded the OBE in the new year's honours list, will the Solicitor-General comment on the overall assessment of the CPS in Northamptonshire as "fair"? Will she also comment on the outcomes of cases in magistrates courts, which are assessed as being below the national average?

Vera Baird: Yes, I understand that the CPS in Northamptonshire narrowly missed achieving a "good" score, achieving a "fair" score instead. In four of the five critical aspects of performance, the inspectors judged the direction of travel to be "improving". I had not understood there to be difficulties in regard to the outcomes in the magistrates courts. The magistrates courts and Crown courts certainly appear to have achieved successful outcomes, as their targets require. They have reduced ineffective trials, which is another key target related to both kinds of court, and they appear to be applying their case work quality assurance satisfactorily, so I am not sure that they are failing in that regard. In fact, they have been slightly under par in the way in which they have dealt with the issue of no witness, no justice—which deals with witness care material—but they have failed by only 0.4 per cent. in that area, so they really are doing quite well and going in the right direction.

Peter Bone: On the CPS in Northamptonshire, what measure does the Solicitor-General have of its success in tackling human trafficking?

Vera Baird: The quarterly assessments do not break down in that way. They show performance by category of case, and show only broadly how the duties are being carried out. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to make a specific inquiry into how the chief Crown prosecutor is doing in that regard, I have no objection to doing so.

Monarchy (Male Primogeniture)

Andrew MacKinlay: If she will include provisions in the single equality Bill to end the practice of male primogeniture in succession to the throne.

Vera Baird: The equality Bill will combat discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, in public functions and in employment. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, who has responsibility for issues of succession, has made it clear that the Government are ready to consider the arguments about primogeniture. This is a complex area, and any change in the law governing succession to the throne would require the consent of the other Commonwealth countries of which Her Majesty is Head of State. The Government will keep the position under review.

Andrew MacKinlay: But why will the Government not let us have a discussion about the institution of the monarchy? Many of us find offensive the fact that our Head of State has to be of a particular religion. In a modern democracy, the Head of State should be able to be of any religion or none. We do not want to tinker with this matter just to suit some members of the royal family. The rule of male primogeniture is offensive, but so are the rules relating to the religious faith—or lack of it—of the Head of State. It is time for us, and the other countries that are subject to the Statute of Westminster, to be radical and to address this matter. Let's get on with it!

Vera Baird: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He says it loudly and he says it strongly, so he has just proved any suggestion that we do not discuss these issues to be incorrect.

Dominic Grieve: I suspect that there are universal views across the House that male primogeniture is an aspect of the royal succession that could be sensibly changed. Could the Solicitor-General confirm that the major issue is that the Act of Settlement applies not only to this country but to all other Commonwealth countries that have the Queen as Head of State and that, in the circumstances, for us to move without moving at the same pace and in the same fashion as those countries would cause problems that are probably best avoided?

Vera Baird: I was grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's support, but then he backslid a little bit in the last sentence. However, he pinpoints the problem, which is about the Commonwealth countries.

WOMEN AND EQUALITY

The Minister for Women and Equality was asked—

Milton Keynes Racial Equality Council

Mark Lancaster: What funding the Government provided to Milton Keynes racial equality council in each of the last two financial years. [Official Report, 5 June 2008, Vol. 476, c. 11MC.]

Barbara Follett: Milton Keynes racial equality council received around £50,000 of Government funding in 2006-07 and around £60,000 in 2007-08. That represents 28 per cent. of the total amount received by all racial equality councils in the country during those years. In addition, Milton Keynes racial equality council received a grant of £45,000 from the Commission for Racial Equality in 2006-07 and another of £42,000 in 2007-08.

Mark Lancaster: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I know that she values the work of Milton Keynes racial equality council as much as I do. However, she did not mention that this year that grant has been cut from £42,000 to zero, so there will be no money this year. That is having a major impact on the council's work in Milton Keynes. Is the Minister prepared to meet a delegation from Milton Keynes to discuss the impact that the cut is having and to see what can be done in future? I hope that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) will join that delegation and come and see her to discuss the matter.

Barbara Follett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Milton Keynes racial equality council has got £60,027 from central Government, but I agree that its funding from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been cut this year. That is because the commission awarded £10.9 million to successful applicants in its first grants this April. That was a competitive process because, as usual, the numbers of applicants exceeded the amount of money available, and entries were rigorously assessed. Milton Keynes REC can apply again later this year for the 2009-10 programme. However, Milton Keynes council has received £105 million from the Government office for the east midlands extremism fund. The allocation of those funds is obviously a matter for the local authority, but it might be wise if Milton Keynes REC approaches it. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Phyllis Starkey: Milton Keynes racial equality council has already had a meeting with Milton Keynes council, so I hope that the option of the prevention of terrorism fund has already been explored. However, there is an issue about how the EHRC has allocated grants, and I wonder whether the Minister might put pressure on it to work with Milton Keynes REC to ensure that the grant application that it puts in next year is better attuned to the criteria used by the EHRC than it appears to have been this year.

Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that considered question. The EHRC is an independent body, but I will speak to its chair, Trevor Phillips. On this occasion, the grants had to come up to a very rigorous set of requirements, and unfortunately Milton Keynes did not quite make it. I will talk to the EHRC about the help that it could give to Milton Keynes, but I also suggest that both Members of Parliament ask their local authority to give help, as I know that my own local authority has set up a grants adviser because this has become an area where expertise is needed.

Single Equality Bill

Mark Harper: When she plans to publish draft clauses of the single equality Bill.

Barbara Follett: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality has made it clear on several occasions in this House that we would seek to publish some of the clauses of the equality Bill in draft when they are ready. If we are to publish those draft clauses, we want to make sure that they are as near final as possible before we do so.

Mark Harper: I thank the Minister for that interesting answer, although if the draft clauses are "as near final as possible", it does not sound as if minds are open to having them changed based on contributions from elsewhere. I have a very simple question: given that it is now May and the draft clauses still have not been published, is it still the Government's intention to introduce the Bill in the Queen's Speech in November 2008?

Barbara Follett: The short answer to that question is yes, and the slightly longer answer is that one of the reasons for the delay is that we are considering the many hundreds of replies that we had to the consultation. Policy changes have been made that we need to consider carefully.

Sandra Osborne: What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government on the single equality Act and on how its provisions will affect devolved matters?

Barbara Follett: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality has been to speak to the Scottish Government and to MSPs, and I will be going there later this year to discuss the matter.

Simon Burns: With regard to the consultations that have taken place on the draft Bill, will the Minister tell us what consultations have taken place on primogeniture and the line of succession? What representations have the Government received from those who may be affected by it?

Barbara Follett: As far as I know, none, but I will check and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Jo Swinson: Here is a representation for the Minister. Next weekend, Peter Phillips is due to marry Autumn Kelly; she has had to convert to the Church of England to preserve his place in succession to the throne. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish the happy couple well on their big day, but would it not be better to send them a wedding present by using the equality Bill to abolish that institutional discrimination against Catholics?

Barbara Follett: I think that I will confine myself to congratulating the happy couple, and wishing them well in their marriage, which, as hon. Members know, requires a lot of adjustments on both sides at the beginning, middle and end.

Lynne Featherstone: The Minister may be aware that I referred the case of Lady Louise being bumped out of line to the throne to the European Court of Human Rights, and it has responded positively, supporting the principle of getting rid of male primogeniture. The Solicitor-General made positive comments about that change being in the Act, and I congratulate the Government on that and welcome it. Does the Minister agree that it is very disappointing when those on the Tory Benches slide backwards and say that because it is difficult in the Commonwealth— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for the Minister to concern herself with Conservative party policy. The hon. Lady has been called because she is a Liberal spokesman, so she should put her question to the Minister.

Lynne Featherstone: You are right, Mr. Speaker, as always. Will the Minister assure me that the difficulties of working this through the Commonwealth should not stand in the way of its being done? It is right that it should be done, and we have heard from all parties that it should be done, so will the Minister confirm that view?

Barbara Follett: This kind of change in our country, which has a long tradition, is always difficult. Before any change is brought in, we will try to build a cross-party consensus, and a cross-Commonwealth consensus. Primogeniture is a problem, and it is offensive, but we have to approach the matter cautiously.

Women into Business and Enterprise Initiative

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What discussions she has had with regional development agencies on their support for the women into business and enterprise initiative.

Barbara Follett: The regional development agencies have a vital role in tackling inequalities, as I know as Minister for the East of England, including delivery of the Government's new package of support for women that was outlined in the enterprise strategy. That is why the Minister for Women and Equality wrote to the RDA chairs on 1 May to ask about the progress that they had made on this vital agenda.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Does she agree that support networks, such as Women Into the Network, which is hosted by the business school of Durham university in my constituency, have a vital role to play alongside the excellent initiatives that the regional development agency, One NorthEast, undertakes in unlocking women's business skills? Does she also agree that that is necessary if we are to continue to grow entrepreneurship in the north-east and exceed current trends?

Barbara Follett: We women came to networking rather late. We are doing it now in politics and business as fast as we can. I am pleased with the work that Durham business school has done and the partnership that it has forged with the RDA, One NorthEast. The latter has funded Durham business school's networking initiative and, with Business Link North East, helps to sponsor its annual awards. That is the way forward for women—getting together, mentoring and helping each other as far as we can.

Anne McIntosh: How many chairmen of regional development agencies are women? How does that reflect on the equality agenda?

Barbara Follett: All RDA chairs are charged with taking forward equalities. However, I am sorry to say that I do not know the answer to the hon. Lady's question. I will have to write to her.

Carers (Flexible Working)

Dawn Butler: What steps the Government are taking to increase awareness among carers of their right to request flexible working.

Harriet Harman: The right for carers to request flexible working is important, with the number of those aged over 85 expected to increase by 50 per cent. in the next 10 years. Despite the fact that most of them will be in better health, they will need some care and support. Employers are granting many requests for flexible working, but there is a low level of awareness of the right, which we will tackle with an information campaign.

Dawn Butler: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that response. My constituency of Brent, South is the most diverse in the UK. As such, it is tradition that many people look after elderly relatives. However, they do not understand that they have a right to request flexible working. Can my right hon. and learned Friend expand on what the Government will do to ensure that people are aware of their rights when caring for elderly relatives?

Harriet Harman: We want to ensure that, in every community throughout the country, people are aware of the right, which the House introduced, to request flexible working if they provide any care for an older relative. Of course, it is important to have good public services to support older people, most of whom live independently in their own homes. However, family care is very important, and the stay-at-home daughter who used to provide that care is now a going-out-to-work daughter. Flexibility for those who are working as well as caring for relatives is therefore important. That will be part of the consultation on the carers' strategy, which the Prime Minister established and is being led by the Department of Health. It will report later in the summer.

Theresa May: I apologise for not being present at business questions later, but I shall be attending the funeral of that redoubtable parliamentarian, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody.
	The Minister previously promised that the Government would follow the Conservative party's policy of extending the right to request flexible working to parents of all children under the age of 18. Will she guarantee to follow our policy of flexible parental leave, which would allow parents to have parental leave that they could share and give them the opportunity to take it simultaneously?

Harriet Harman: It is important for both fathers and mothers to have appropriate leave and flexibility in their work. The Government have led the way on that, and we will take it further. That is why we set up the review under Imelda Walsh to ascertain how we could build on the legislation that we introduced at a time when the Opposition called it an example of the nanny state. I am grateful to Imelda Walsh for her work. We will publish her report shortly and, at that point, will look for all-party support. The right hon. Lady is a bit of a Jenny-come-lately on the matter.

Anne Begg: I am delighted to hear that there will be an advertising campaign to make people aware of the right to request flexible working. However, when someone suddenly has to become a carer, they sometimes drop out of the workplace. It is then quite difficult for them to get back in, because they have to have worked for an employer for six months before they can make that request. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into that, to ensure that people with caring responsibilities are not forced out of the workplace in the first place and to make it easier for them to return?

Harriet Harman: The question of people who have been out of the workplace with full-time caring responsibilities who need to get back in is something that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is concerned to include in his contribution to the carers' strategy, which will be published later in the summer. The key thing, as my hon. Friend said, is that people should not have to choose between giving the care and support that they want to give to an older relative and remaining financially independent by going out to work. With the growing number of older people, which is a demographic revolution, we need to ensure that that is recognised in the structure and patterns of work. As for the 26 weeks, my hon. Friend will be aware that it is the normal condition across the board under employment law, and we do not propose to change it in that respect.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Treaty Ratification Procedure

Mark Harper: What consideration she has given to the modernisation of parliamentary procedure relating to the ratification of treaties.

Helen Goodman: Proposals on parliamentary scrutiny of treaties are included in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, which is currently being considered by a Joint Committee of Parliament. Under the proposals, the Government would be legally required to lay treaties before Parliament for 21 sitting days prior to ratification. A vote by either House against ratification would mean that the Government could not simply ratify the treaty without further steps. In particular, the Government could not ratify a treaty that the Commons had voted against, unless they relaid the same or a revised proposal and the House did not vote against it again. The Government believe that the right of Parliament to scrutinise treaties before ratification should be based on statute. This will transfer power from the Executive to Parliament and make the rules clearer and more transparent.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer, but in a previous case where we had parliamentary scrutiny of a treaty—namely the Lisbon treaty—it was not a rip-roaring success. The Government broke their promise on having a referendum and then we were promised detailed line-by-line scrutiny in the House, which was also not delivered. If the Government are going to bring forward the proposals that the Deputy Leader of the House described, they had better listen, learn from those experiences, deliver on their promises and ensure that the House has a genuine say in the ratification of treaties, because if the Lisbon treaty process is any example, people will be left feeling let down by the Government yet again.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman has not taken account of the fact that European treaties will not be covered by the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, because they have a higher barrier to pass. European treaties must be incorporated into a piece of legislation and go through all the normal legislative processes of the House, and that is precisely what the Government did with the Lisbon treaty.

Simon Hughes: The statement by the Deputy Leader of the House on the Government's plans for the future is welcome. However, she will be aware that even since the beginning of this Session, the UK has entered into five international treaties, including an important one on sentencing with the International Criminal Court. Will she consider a proposal to allow us to look at treaties that will come down the pipeline between now and the eventual passage of a Constitutional Renewal Bill, which could take two or three years to come into effect? All colleagues, in both Houses, would welcome the chance to see the treaties in draft and express a view on them, and that cannot be too difficult to arrange.

Helen Goodman: As the hon. Gentleman understands fully, the procedure for treaties currently follows the Ponsonby rule. The convention is that they are laid on the Table in both Houses for 21 days. Obviously that will continue until we have the Constitutional Renewal Bill. As he may also be aware, on some occasions there are time limits that make giving full notice particularly difficult. However, I will look into the suggestion that he made.

New Technology

Jo Swinson: If she will propose to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons that it inquire into the use of new technology to connect Parliament with the public.

Helen Goodman: The Government and the House attach great importance to promoting parliamentary engagement with the public. There are no current plans for the Modernisation Committee to examine the specific issue of the use of new technology in support of that, but the Committee has frequently examined it within its other work—for example, in the recent reforms to the legislative process.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Minister for that answer. There are many ways in which new technology can help Parliament better to connect with the public, as highlighted by my own campaign to allow parliamentary video clips to be shown on YouTube and other websites and also by the "Free our Bills" campaign to make legislation more easily accessible, searchable and understandable online. Will the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House further consider asking the Modernisation Committee to undertake an inquiry specifically on that issue, taking into account the two subjects that I have mentioned?

Helen Goodman: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is aware that television proceedings and subsequent use on Members' websites are subject to a licence issued by the Speaker. The licence stipulates that material must not be hosted on a searchable website and must not be downloadable. The reason for that is to ensure that it is not re-edited or reused inappropriately for campaigning or satirical purposes.
	The hon. Lady raised the issue of mySociety's "Free our Bills" campaign and it is obvious that great strides have been taken recently in improving the parliamentary website. She is right to suggest that if our constituents can gain easier access to the progress of Bills, it will enable them to intervene as they wish. That work is ongoing. The specific proposals of mySociety, however, have some disadvantages. It wants to be able to provide explanatory material and to reorder some material, but before we went that far we would need to look into it in much greater detail.

David Drew: The most important way in which the public can access the parliamentary system is by accessing their MPs. I want to commend those who organise the IT system, or—as it certainly went through difficult times—those who are now running a much better system. Will my hon. Friend make it clear—it may have to be done through parliamentary procedures—that we really should not be shutting down the system? When we are trying to work through remote access, it is very annoying when neither our constituents can access us nor we them.

Helen Goodman: Like my hon. Friend I have a rural constituency, so I understand the particular difficulties faced by Members whose IT access collapses, if only temporarily. I will take up my hon. Friend's points with the Parliamentary Information and Communication Technology department.

Draft Legislative Programme

David Burrowes: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Government's publication of a draft legislative programme.

Harriet Harman: May I first apologise, like the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), for the fact that because I will be attending the funeral of my good friend and doughty parliamentarian, Gwyneth Dunwoody, I will be unable to remain in my place for the conclusion of these questions I will leave the business statement in the competent hands of the Deputy Leader of the House.
	Following the publication of last year's draft legislative programme on 11 July 2007, the Government published in November a summary of the consultation carried out and the comments received in "The Government's Draft Legislative Programme— Taking a Wider View". As Leader of the House, I contributed to the Modernisation Committee's inquiry on the draft legislative programme. That Committee reported in January 2008, and the outcomes from those exercises have informed the consultation process for this year's draft legislative programme, which will be published shortly.

David Burrowes: While the Government are now apparently full of empathy and listening, does the Leader of the House recall the fanfare greeting of last year's draft legislative programme, which said that it was all about
	"improving the public's opportunity to have a say in that process"?
	How many members of the public actually had their say and what difference did it make?

Harriet Harman: Last year, for the first time, instead of merely producing the list of Bills that would comprise the Government's legislative programme in the Queen's Speech, we published our programme in draft in advance, in order to make transparent a process that had hitherto been carried out only behind closed doors. That allowed people to see what we were doing and to have their say. We conceded that we did that late in the day because it was brought in by the new Prime Minister, who had only taken up his office in June. We thus undertook to do it earlier this year in order to allow people more of a say, and that is what we intend to do.

Andrew MacKinlay: Are we going to have a special referendum Bill relating to the future of the United Kingdom? I remind the right hon. and learned Lady that my constituents and hers have as much ownership of, and interest in, the future of the United Kingdom as do people in Edinburgh or Glasgow. If it is true that the United Kingdom Cabinet has not discussed this matter, then it should. Its failure to do so would be an abdication of its constitutional responsibilities, and this House has a duty, for the sake of the future of the United Kingdom, which needs to be addressed.

Harriet Harman: The contents of the draft legislative programme will be announced shortly. However, on scrutiny by this House of English regional issues, my hon. Friend will know that the Modernisation Committee is conducting an inquiry into English regional Select Committees and will make its proposals shortly.

Theresa May: The Leader of the House said that the draft legislative programme would be published shortly. The Modernisation Committee report of January supported the proposal that she had put forward that the draft legislative programme should be published at Easter. I note she said that that would provide enough time for the Government to have sensible measures to put forward. Are we to read into the fact that the programme has not been published at Easter this year that the Government have nothing sensible to say?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady will have to make up her mind, along with everybody else, when we publish our draft legislative programme, but perhaps she will also remember that Easter was very early this year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Crèche Facilities

Jessica Morden: What recent consideration has been given by the House authorities to the provision of crèche facilities for staff and hon. Members.

Nick Harvey: There are no current plans for a crèche, but if there is an unmet need or demand, this can be looked at again. Members' staff and staff of the House are eligible for child care vouchers. The Members Estimate Committee has recently considered extending the voucher scheme to Members, and will return to the subject shortly.

Jessica Morden: Will the hon. Gentleman talk to the Commission about undertaking a survey of staff and Members to establish whether there is a demand for a crèche? Also, as an immediate measure, would it not be possible for staff and Members to be able to pay to use nearby departmental crèches as and when the need arises, given the nature of their jobs?

Nick Harvey: I am sure that the possibility of using nearby departmental facilities could be investigated. I will refer the hon. Lady's remarks about having a more general survey to the Administration Committee. A survey was conducted in 2003, which led to the conclusion that it was more convenient, particularly for members of staff, to have child care vouchers that did not have to be redeemed here at Westminster, but which could be used nearer to where they lived, such as in outer London boroughs—or, indeed, in the constituencies, because Members' constituency staff are eligible for the vouchers and can redeem them in the constituencies.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Topical Debates

Nicholas Winterton: What the timetable is for her review of the method of selecting the subjects for topical debates.

Helen Goodman: As set out in the written ministerial statement of 7 February announcing the review, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has asked for comments to inform the review by 23 May. The results of the review will be published to the House before the summer recess. This will help to inform any decision of the House on whether to make permanent the Standing Orders that introduced topical debates on an experimental basis for the 2007-08 Session, or whether any changes to the Standing Orders may be necessary.

Nicholas Winterton: The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that the Procedure Committee is undertaking an inquiry into this matter, in addition to the review by the Leader of the House. Will the Deputy Leader of the House not concede that the current method of choosing topical debates is not transparent, and that it appears to be the decision of the Government when it should be the decision of Back Benchers—and would it not be sensible to have a Committee set up, under the chairmanship of a Back-Bench Member?

Helen Goodman: I will take the hon. Gentleman's remarks as his contribution to the review. I have seen the Procedure Committee report on this question. I would like to point out to him that topical debates are held in Government time, and that if he were to look through the subjects that we have addressed over the past six months, he would see that they have been suggested by Members from across the House, including many Back Benchers. Therefore, until we have examined the matter, I cannot promise him that we will change the way in which the choice is made.

Private Members' Bills (Westminster Hall)

Hugh Bayley: If she will propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that it inquire into using Westminster Hall as well as the main Chamber for debate on Private Members' Bills on Fridays.

Helen Goodman: The House has, from time to time, looked at the time made available to private Members' Bills and the best ways for them to be considered. The issue is complex. For example, it includes the question of how much time hon. Members want to spend on parliamentary business at Westminster, and within that, on private Members' business, and the place of that time within the working week.
	I understand my hon. Friend's proposal to involve parallel Friday sittings in the two venues so that more Bills can be considered. I am not aware that that specific idea has been proposed before, but it is clearly one that any Committee examining this issue could consider.

Hugh Bayley: I am very glad to hear that the issue may get consideration. Private Members have brought some very important legislation through the House, legislation that Governments of the day have been too frightened to introduce—one thinks of the abolition of the death penalty or the abortion law reform. Legislation on more of these difficult issues, including, perhaps, legislation to deal with the question of primogeniture, could be brought through by a private Member if more time were available. I urge the Modernisation Committee to examine my proposal seriously.

Helen Goodman: I agree with my hon. Friend that much private Members' legislation has been extremely important and groundbreaking. I know that an hon. Member could apply every year for 10 years and still have only a 50/50 chance of being selected in the ballot, but sometimes issues that initially appear in private Members' legislation find their way into Government legislation in the end.

Royal Assent

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Business of the House

Shailesh Vara: May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Helen Goodman: The business for the week commencing 12 May will be:
	Monday 12 May—Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 13 May—Remaining stages of the Education and Skills Bill, followed by motion to consider the statement of changes in Immigration Rules Order 2008 (HC 321).
	Wednesday 14 May—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Pensioner Poverty", followed by a debate entitled "Vehicle Excise Duty". Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 15 May—Topical debate: Subject to be announced, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments, followed by motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	Friday 16 May—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 19 May will include:
	Monday 19 May—Consideration in Committee of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 20 May—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 21 May—Second Reading of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [ Lords].
	Thursday 22 May—Topical debate: Subject to be announced, followed by motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
	 Following is the information: The 41st and the 42nd, and the 46th to the 65th, reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2006-07, and the Treasury Minutes on these reports (Cm 7275, 7276 and 7322); and the 1st to the 4th, the 6th, and the 9th to the 13th reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2007-08, and the Treasury Minutes on these reports (Cm 7323 and 7364).

Shailesh Vara: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that information.
	During yesterday's Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said that Wendy Alexander, the leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament, had not called for an immediate referendum on Scottish independence. However, on Tuesday evening, she was asked on Scottish television:
	"Is Gordon Brown endorsing your decision to call for a Referendum?"
	She replied, "Yes." She was asked:
	"He is endorsing it and he has told you that?"
	She again said, "Yes." They cannot both be right, so which is it?
	Today, the Health Committee published a damning report on the junior doctors recruitment crisis last year. It described the Government's handling as "inept". May I suggest a topical debate on the Government's treatment of junior doctors?
	During Prime Minister's questions yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed that the Government had lifted 1 million children out of poverty. However, during Cabinet Office questions earlier, the Minister for the Cabinet Office cited the figure as "600,000". Where did the Prime Minister's extra 400,000 come from? May we have a statement from the Prime Minister to explain his exaggeration?
	Sir Ian Blair has admitted that when giving evidence to MPs in support of 42-day detention without trial he gave misleading figures regarding the number of serious terrorist plots disrupted by the police since 2005. This is a matter of grave concern, as is the fact that the Government have asked both Sir Ian and Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick to argue the case for 42 days. Politicising the police in that way is unacceptable. It smacks of desperation and further undermines the Government's position. We need a statement urgently from the Home Secretary on her manipulation of the police for political gain.
	Last week, the Government chose the day before the local elections to slip out a written statement on the backlog of inquests into the deaths of our brave servicemen and women. It confirmed that, despite numerous assurances from the Leader of the House and others, the Government have failed to reduce the backlog significantly. This issue deserves an oral statement from the Secretary of State for Justice.
	The Government have spent more than £1 billion on trying to tackle truancy. But data released this week show that more than 40,000 children are missing at least two days of school every week—an increase on the previous term. So if the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families can find the time to break away from his usual plotting and scheming, perhaps he would like to make a statement explaining why the Government are failing to tackle truancy.
	The Government continue to dither instead of taking decisive action, they are incapable of giving straight answers to straight questions, and their Back Benchers are in open revolt over their policies—

Jim Sheridan: No we're not.

Shailesh Vara: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take more note of what the newspapers are saying about his colleagues, instead of making unnecessary interruptions from a sedentary position.
	Is it any wonder that the Deputy Leader of the House said in the  Northern Echo that
	"it is unacceptable to have policies like the 10p tax rate coming from a Labour Government."
	Last week's council elections showed that voters from Sunderland to Southampton agree with her. The question is, does the Prime Minister?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman began by asking about Scotland. I do not know whether he is aware of the letter that the Prime Minister has sent to the Leader of the Opposition, but to clarify matters for the House I shall quote from it. The Prime Minister wrote to the Leader of the Opposition that his letter showed
	"that you do not understand this important issue relating to Scotland and the Union. Today you suggested there were plans to have a referendum now. As Wendy Alexander has said this afternoon, there is nobody seeking legislation at Westminster to have a referendum. The procedures of the Scottish Parliament mean that even if the SNP or anyone else introduced a Bill at Holyrood it would take up to 12 months to complete."
	The Prime Minister and Wendy Alexander are agreed on the importance of exposing the hollowness of the SNP's position.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recruitment of junior doctors last year. As he knows, the Health Committee produced a thorough report that examines the detailed management structures and makes suggestions about how they should be improved. As he may also be aware, the system for recruitment has changed.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned child poverty. He should recall that in addition to the reductions in child poverty that the Government have already achieved—unlike the increases that we saw under the previous Administration—the recent Budget will take a further quarter of a million children out of poverty.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about terrorist plots. As he knows, the Government take the subject very seriously. That is why we introduced the Counter-Terrorism Bill, which is upstairs in Committee. As he also knows, additional resources have been provided to the police to facilitate their work on this matter.
	The hon. Gentleman talked next about inquests. As he knows, the Government have produced a draft coroners Bill. He also raised the question of the 10p tax rate. The Government are considering the need to review that situation and will come forward with proposals. Finally, he talked about truancy. As he knows, the Department for Children, Schools and Families has a positive action programme to reduce truancy among children.

Robert Smith: On the 10p tax rate, will the Deputy Leader of the House give us an early indication of when the Report stage of the Finance Bill will be? Yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time the Prime Minister yet again refused to give any indication of the time scale over which an attempt to deal with the problems of doubling the 10p tax rate would be made. He told my party that we should be willing to wait for the Chancellor. It is not only parties that have to wait for the Chancellor, but our constituents. The 10p tax rate was doubled in April and it hit them in the pocket then. They want to know how to budget for their bills. They will be able to do that only if they get the details of what the Government will do. By definition, as the lower earners in our country, they are the most unable to cope with sudden cash flow hits. We need details of what the Chancellor will do, and we need them before Report. Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us when the Bill will be debated on Report, as that is the last chance that the House will have to address the issue through this Finance Bill, if the Government fail to do so?
	Will she ask the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to make an early statement on the closure of post offices? On 28 May, the north-east of Scotland will hear the fate of its post offices. We need the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs to announce a suspension of the closure programme so that he can make concrete proposals to bring new business into post offices.
	Following the hon. Lady's answer on referendums, we need an early debate on communication between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster so that we can clear up the Government's exact stance on referendums and the strategy for taking the issue forward. Clearly, the confusion created by Wendy Alexander and the Prime Minister does not help us to tackle the agenda and does not bring clarity to the future of our constitution.
	Later today, the House will have the opportunity to pay tribute to the courageous work of our armed forces in Afghanistan. The hon. Lady will know that the Government's reply to the International Development Committee's report on Afghanistan was published last week. Will she therefore arrange a wider debate on Afghanistan? I am a member of the Committee and when we visited Afghanistan we saw the work that is being done by Department for International Development staff on the ground, not just in Helmand but throughout Afghanistan. A lot of essential development work is being done and it is important for the House to see and hear about the work and to focus a debate on our priorities for Afghanistan.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman began by asking when the Finance Bill will be debated on Report. I am afraid that I do not have that information at the moment, but, as he knows, provisional business is always announced two weeks ahead, so he will get good notice of the debate. He will be aware that the Treasury Committee is looking into the issue, and it is aiming to publish a report that will inform our debate.
	I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that, in the past six months, there have been 16 debates on post office closures. The debates have mainly been specific to communities, but there will be a general debate in Westminster Hall next week. In addition, the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has produced a report, and all Select Committee reports can, of course, be debated in Westminster Hall.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned communications between London and Scotland. As he knows, when urgent matters arise, as they did over Grangemouth, practical solutions can be reached. What he is trying to get at is a political disagreement, to which I cannot respond in business questions.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the serious issues facing our armed forces in Afghanistan. Those issues could be raised in this afternoon's debate on defence in the world, but he rightly states that there is an overseas aid aspect, which, of course, can be raised with the Department for International Development.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for us to debate the Corston report in this Chamber? It was published months ago, yet there has been no opportunity for a full debate on how the Government will implement the report's very sensible recommendations on vulnerable women in the criminal justice system.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience as a former Home Office Minister, and she is quite right: the Corston report is important and the Government have welcomed it. I will take back her suggestion of holding a topical debate on the report.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on the rising cost of living, in which we could debate the cost of fuel? It was abundantly clear yesterday that the Prime Minister had absolutely no idea how much it cost to fill up a family car in his constituency. Why are the Government so out of touch?

Helen Goodman: I do not accept for a minute that the Government are out of touch on fuel prices. We delayed the 2p a litre fuel duty increase precisely because we are aware of the needs of ordinary families and the increase in the cost of filling up a car, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should exaggerate the situation. Since 1999, the cost of fuel duty—both petrol and diesel—has in fact fallen by 16 per cent. The reason petrol prices have gone up is that oil prices have increased. I take it that he will use the opportunity of the Opposition day debate next week to make the points that he wants to.

David Drew: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1280, which looks at pay-day lending?
	 [That this House notes that the global credit crunch is now impacting on the ability of UK consumers to obtain access to affordable credit; notes that high cost and irresponsible forms of lending such as pay day lending, which charges in excess of 1,000 per cent. APR and traps people on lower incomes in a cycle of credit dependency, are now expanding rapidly as a result; further notes that Dollar Financial, one such US pay day lender, now has over 200 Moneyshop stores providing these loans in the UK; regards this development as extremely worrying for the Government ' s ambition to eradicate child poverty; and urges the Treasury, the Department for Business and Regulatory Reform, the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Services Authority to conduct a joint inquiry into the growth of high cost lending, including pay day loans, in order to inform future regulatory action against irresponsible and high cost lenders and to contribute to the Government ' s aim of ensuring greater access to affordable credit.]
	Such lending, which is common in the United States and Canada and is becoming increasingly so in this country, involves someone having to pay out a post-dated cheque on the basis that they will borrow a lesser sum. But, of course, we are talking about much higher rates of interest, and it is really the fault of the legitimate lenders, who have a responsibility to lend to those who have lesser means. The worry is that, if that lending in the formal sense begins to dry up, people will have to go to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not make a statement but ask a question. There was no question at the end of that, but I dare say that the Deputy Leader of the House will fish something out of it.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that saver protection is as important for those on low incomes as it is for those with large amounts of money. That is why the Government introduced the Consumer Credit Act 2006, but if there are loopholes in some parts of the financial sector I will draw his remarks to the attention of colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Adam Holloway: May we have a debate on crime? Despite the valiant efforts of Superintendents Beautridge, Hogbern and Gladstone, antisocial behaviour that in the past would have been dealt with by the police in Gravesham is now not being dealt with. It is almost as though the bar on what is acceptable behaviour and what is not has been raised.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, overall, crime has been falling, although there are problems with some kinds of crime and, indeed, with antisocial behaviour. He can always make the points that he has made with Home Office Ministers in Home Office questions.

Keith Vaz: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1488?
	 [That this House welcomes the proposal by the Russian Government not to require British fans to apply for visas when they visit Russia for the Champions League Final between Chelsea and Manchester United on 21st May 2008; notes that this is an excellent way to celebrate the positive spirit of competitive football; recognises that the British Government is unable to waive visa restrictions in return in respect of the UEFA Cup Final in Manchester between Zenit St Petersburg and Glasgow Rangers on 14th May; and calls on the Government to waive visa fees as a goodwill gesture.]
	Will my hon. Friend arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make an urgent statement in response to the Russian Government's proposal to waive visa fees for British fans who travel to Moscow for the European cup final? Would it not be appropriate for the British Government to reciprocate by waiving fees for the Russian fans who will attend the UEFA cup final in Manchester? Unfortunately, Leicester City is in neither of the finals.

Helen Goodman: As all hon. Members know, those football matches will be played very soon, so I am not sure whether it will be possible to organise a debate within a time scale that would make a difference, but I will draw my right hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of colleagues in the Foreign Office.

Roger Gale: The hon. Lady will be aware that, yesterday, a High Court judgment denied the Home Secretary any further right of appeal in her endeavours to maintain the proscription as a terrorist organisation of the People's Mujahideen of Iran. The Government are therefore now in clear breach of the judgment of the European Court of First Instance. So, first, when will the Home Secretary come to the House to make a statement and, secondly, when will the Government lay the necessary orders to lift the proscription?

Helen Goodman: As the hon. Gentleman clearly understands, the judgment was received only yesterday, and the Home Office is actively considering what its response should be.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on the ongoing problem of the exploitation of migrant workers? My hon. Friend might be aware of reports in the papers today that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has withdrawn the licence of a company called Timberland Homes Recruitment, which supplies flowers to high street shops the length and breadth of our country. That company has been accused of 15 breaches of regulations, such as those on transportation, accommodation and minimum wage requirements. The families back home have also been threatened by the company. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging a boycott of the company's products, so that we can clearly demonstrate that the exploitation of workers—whether they are migrants or otherwise—will not be tolerated in this country?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The behaviour that he describes is totally unacceptable. That is why the Government are engaged in negotiations at European level on new measures to strengthen the rights of temporary, agency and migrant workers.

Andrew MacKay: The rightly popular Deputy Leader of the House had the good grace to smile and laugh when she was reading out the Prime Minister's response to the Leader of the Opposition, so I hesitate to ask this question, but I think that I ought to. Should not the part-time Defence Secretary and sometime Secretary of State for Scotland come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement next week because the Prime Minister did not clarify the situation regarding a referendum in Scotland? The hon. Lady and I are very well aware that Wendy Alexander was talking about a referendum initiated by the Scottish Parliament, not this Parliament, and it was disingenuous of the Prime Minister to say otherwise.

Helen Goodman: I do not accept that the Prime Minister was disingenuous. He was energetically defending the Union, and that is what I would expect Opposition Members to do too.

Ian Cawsey: Will my hon. Friend be able to find time for a debate on the importance of a co-ordinated approach to future land use? One part of Government is looking at the challenge of flood defence, with a making space for water strategy that includes more use of washlands; another is looking for more land to build on; and another is looking at the challenges of food security and the fact that we will have to produce more of our own food in future. Clearly each issue cannot be considered in isolation, so can we have a debate so that all hon. Members can contribute to the discussion on the important challenges that we face?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These are important long-term issues. Although there have been a number of debates recently about flooding and although a major piece of legislation—the Planning Bill—is going through the House, I will take his proposal as a suggestion for a topical debate.

Peter Bone: On 7 April, in response to a freedom of information request, Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust stated:
	"The Trust's occupancy is currently at 92% for the last 12 months as reported nationally."
	On Tuesday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), said that
	"the bed occupancy rate in Kettering general hospital in the latest year for which figures are available was 81 per cent.".—[ Official Report, 6 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 557.]
	Bed occupancy rate is an important measure of hospital performance. Clearly, either the freedom of information request response is wrong or the Minister of State is wrong. Will he come to the House next week to clarify the situation?

Helen Goodman: I will ask my colleagues in the Department of Health to look at the figures that the hon. Gentleman has raised. However, he should set the issue in context. In the NHS east midlands area since 1997, the number of people on waiting lists has fallen from 30,000 to two, and the number of people receiving cancer treatment within two weeks has now reached 96.3 per cent. When he makes complaints, he should contextualise them as well.

James McGovern: I am delighted to hear that there will be a debate on pensioner poverty, but can we have a debate specifically on the state pension? My hon. Friend may be aware that tomorrow sees the centenary of Winston Churchill being elected as a Liberal MP in Dundee. Political historians suggest that he was elected at least in part because of the introduction of the old age pension two days before—in other words, 100 years ago yesterday. A debate on the state pension would allow us to determine where each party stands on this very important issue.

Helen Goodman: I did not know of the centenary, but my hon. Friend is obviously a worthy successor to Winston Churchill—and he is right to say that tackling pensioner poverty is extremely important. That is why the Government have introduced the pension credit and the winter fuel allowance, and lifted 1 million people out of poverty. I hope that he will have further opportunities to describe that in more detail.

Stewart Hosie: It is worth pointing out that Winston Churchill was then booted out of Dundee by the people, after an unpopular war. There may be a lesson there as well.
	Given the confusion yesterday on the Government Benches with regard to constitutional referendums, as witnessed not just by the very odd answers and by the very strange letter to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), which spoke about a Westminster referendum when none had been called for, and as witnessed by the failure to keep the manifesto promise on a referendum on Europe, would it not be possible to have a debate in Government time so that we can tease out the 57 varieties of opinion on the Government Benches with regard to referendums—and, indeed, to tease out just how little dialogue and discussion actually exists between the Prime Minister and the leader of his party in Scotland?

Helen Goodman: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is extremely interested in this subject, but I do not know why his party have been putting back the referendum that it said it wanted. As he also knows, the Calman commission is reviewing the progress of devolution over the past 10 years and, when we have the results of the commission, that will be the time to consider these matters fully.

Colin Challen: May I drew my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1357?
	 [That this House believes that the creation of a new bank holiday is justified; further believes that such a bank holiday should be created to celebrate and commemorate the contribution of all members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, past and present, in defending United Kingdom democracy and freedom; and considers that such a bank holiday should be known as Veterans Day.]
	She will be aware that there is growing support on both sides of the House for a fresh new bank holiday, and that we have fewer public holidays than most other countries in Europe. If we want to build on the popular appeal of the Government, surely now is the time to introduce a new public holiday. I suggest that my hon. Friend study my short early-day motion, and that we have an early debate on that subject.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter. The number of bank holidays to which people are entitled in addition to their statutory holiday has already been increased by four days, and will increase by a further four days in April next year. However, his suggestion is now clearly on the table.

Julian Lewis: In the spirit of modernisation, may we have a joint statement from the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—explaining why he wants a referendum that he would almost certainly lose—and the Prime Minister, explaining why he wants to stop a referendum which, unlike one on the Lisbon treaty, he would almost certainly win? If they have difficulty producing that joint statement, I am sure that Wendy Alexander will be happy to help in the drafting of it.

Helen Goodman: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. As he knows, oral statements are made by members of the Government, and only one of the people he mentioned is a member of the Government.

Paul Goodman: As the hon. Lady knows, Lord Patel of Bradford is undertaking a review of the effectiveness of the Government's strategy for the prevention of violent extremism. Has she received any notice that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will come to the House to make a statement about the outcome of that review? If she has not, will she be able to write to me with whatever information she may be able to glean?

Helen Goodman: I do not know what the timetable is for that piece of work, but I will pass the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and ask her to keep him informed.

Julian Brazier: Could we have an early debate on last night's astonishing revelations about airport security? Given that the Government have now said that criminal record checks for those working airside apply only to criminal records in this country, and that wider security checks apply only to those specifically involved in security jobs, can the hon. Lady now confirm that there is no barrier whatever to somebody who has committed a serious terrorist offence abroad working airside in a British airport?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious and important matter. I do not think the situation is quite as he describes it. As well as physical security, we already run counter-terrorists checks, which are more detailed than a criminal record check, for all airside workers engaged in security roles. We have also asked Stephen Boys Smith to review whether we should do more in this area. In addition, the Government are taking forward proposals on EU data sharing, which will help significantly on this front, and we are introducing biometric identity cards for foreign nationals and prioritising airside workers. Given that the issue is so important, I simply ask the hon. Gentleman why the Conservative party is not supporting those measures.

David Jones: Could the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on offender management, and specifically on the chain of bail hostels being established around the country by a private company called ClearSprings Management Ltd on behalf of the Ministry of Justice? In Colwyn Bay in my constituency, at least one such hostel is proposed for a residential area without any consultation whatever with residents, the police or the local authority. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would be concerned that, as a result of the Government's failure on offender management, criminals are being introduced into their communities. Members would appreciate the opportunity to express such concerns.

Helen Goodman: I understand the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. My understanding is that the chain of housing for people on bail is discussed with the police and local authority before it is agreed to. However, because there is no change of use, from housing to hostels, proposals do not go through the planning system. Given the importance of the matter, I will of course take it back to my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.

Philip Hollobone: Today the  Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph is launching an important campaign to persuade its readers to install home smoke alarms, because of the 463 homes that had fires in Northamptonshire last year, only 247 were fitted with smoke detectors, and people are twice as likely to die in a fire if they do not have a smoke alarm fitted. May we have a statement from the Minister responsible for the fire service, or a debate in Government time, on home fire safety?

Helen Goodman: I will pass the hon. Gentleman's remarks on to the Minister responsible. He is right, in so far as the fire service saves many more lives when it does preventive work, and its work is currently being reoriented in that way.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has brought out a report on flooding, which says that there are major structural problems with flood defences. May we have an early debate on that as soon as possible, because my constituency will have problems if the flood defences fail?

Helen Goodman: There have been debates in Westminster Hall recently about both flood defences and flooding. As the hon. Gentleman is, I am sure, aware, the Government are increasing spending on the flood prevention infrastructure to £800 million by 2010—and so far this year, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made three written ministerial statements on the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the absence of the Secretary of State for Defence—[Hon. Members: "International Development!"] In the absence of the Secretary of State for International Development, who I understand is on his way, and the Secretary of State for Defence, who has the business after that, I have no option but to suspend the sitting for five minutes.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State for International Development is not here. Could it be that he has been detained advising his sister on the mess that she has got the Government into, and he is now getting the Government—and, indeed, this House—into another mess?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has to be a matter of pure speculation. I suspend the sitting until 12.17 pm.
	 Sitting suspended.

Burma (Cyclone Nargis)

Douglas Alexander: I begin by apologising unreservedly to the House for my delayed arrival and for the delay in making the statement. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to inform it on the response being taken to cyclone Nargis.
	The cyclone hit Burma on the night of 2 May. It has had a devastating impact on the people of Burma: at least 22,000 people have been killed. Unfortunately, we expect this number to rise very significantly in the coming days. Some estimates already range as high as 100,000 dead. At least 42,000 are still missing. The Government estimate that 90 to 95 per cent. of buildings have been destroyed in the low-lying delta region. One million are estimated to be homeless and 1.5 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in the delta region and around Rangoon. Preliminary assessments indicate that the most urgent needs are for shelter, food and clean water.
	The full scale of the disaster will become apparent only over the next few days, as relief teams are able to reach remote communities in cyclone-affected areas. Assessments by the UN and other international agencies have been delayed by difficulties with communications and access. The situation is becoming increasingly perilous, with relief capacity inside the country already severely stretched. There is, of course, an ongoing crisis for the Burmese people, and we are working hard with others in the international community to do all we can for the relief effort.
	We should not underestimate the challenge of the relief effort in Burma. The cyclone struck five states and divisions of Burma: Rangoon, Irrawaddy, Bago, Mon and Kayin. Damaged infrastructure and communications are posing major logistical problems for relief operations. Access to some of the worst affected areas is extremely difficult and will hamper relief distribution. Much of the affected region is accessible only by boat, and many of the boats in that region were damaged or destroyed by the cyclone. It is therefore vital that aid workers get access to areas affected by the cyclone to help to co-ordinate the emergency response and deliver aid to those in need.
	We are currently receiving mixed signals on the question of access to Burma for international staff. There were widespread media reports only this morning of UN flights being unable to land in Burma. The latest information available to my Department suggests that the first flight, with 7 tonnes of high-energy biscuits, landed around 0730 on 8 May, UK time, and the biscuits are being unloaded.
	It is too soon to have a view on the unloading and Customs processes, but the World Food Programme is expected to report back to us early this afternoon. The second flight, with 18 tonnes of high-energy biscuits, has landing rights in Yangon and is currently in Dhaka. It is expected to depart today. Delays to these first two flights were due to delays in obtaining clearances. The third flight will leave Dubai today with a range of items; it too has clearance to land in Burma. The fourth flight, due to leave from Italy, is on hold while a view is taken on the capacity of the airport equipment and staff in Burma. The UN does not want to overwhelm this capacity. The first Red Cross and NGO flights will seek access shortly. We do not yet know whether the Burmese Government will allow free access for international agencies to the areas affected by the disaster.
	We, as well as the UN and the NGOs, are continuing to urge the Burmese authorities to ensure rapid access for international humanitarian staff to Burma, and for access, in turn, to the worst affected areas within Burma in order to manage our assistance effectively. Representations are being made at both multilateral and bilateral levels. I have spoken personally to John Holmes, the UN's emergency relief co-ordinator, who is also appealing to the Burmese authorities to allow UN agencies and international workers access. I have spoken to our ambassador in Rangoon, Mark Canning, who raised the issue of access with both the senior general and the Burmese Prime Minister. I have also spoken to the Burmese ambassador here in London to urge him to facilitate rapid access for international humanitarian staff.
	Alongside working to secure access to the affected areas, the UK has made an immediate contribution of up to £5 million—the largest single contribution made by any one country—to help the UN, the Red Cross and the NGOs meet urgent humanitarian needs, including shelter and access to clean water, and food and other emergency items. We have readied stockpiles of emergency supplies such as tents, water containers, blankets, and plastic sheets, and sourced additional logistic equipment and relief supplies to be delivered by the same agencies. We are working closely with agencies on the ground to determine exact needs, and we expect to be able to allocate these funds in the coming days as needs and access become clearer. The UN flash appeal is expected by tomorrow. Yesterday, 7 May, I met UK-based NGOs to discuss potential DFID support. We are ready to deploy an emergency field team to help co-ordinate our assessment and response to the disaster as soon as visas can be obtained from the Burmese Government.
	The UN humanitarian co-ordinator will meet the Burmese authorities later today to provide an overview of international commitments and to discuss the progress of the response. Already, more than $20 million has been pledged by donors to the relief effort. In addition, the UN has announced that a minimum of $10 million will be released from the central emergency relief fund, to which the UK is the largest contributor. The Red Cross and NGOs that have a presence in Burma, including World Vision, Save the Children and Médecins sans Frontières, are undertaking emergency assessments and have begun distributing basic emergency items such as food and water supplies. Co-ordination mechanisms are in place between the UN, NGOs and donors on the ground.
	Domestically, the Government of Burma have pledged some $4.5 million for relief and have established an emergency committee headed by the Burmese Prime Minister. The Burmese Government have reiterated their readiness to accept international assistance, but they are only just starting to allow in UN aid. The challenges of the relief effort would daunt even the most developed country, and it is important that the Burmese Government accept all offers of international assistance offered to them.
	As the House will be aware, as well as our initial pledge of up to £5 million for the relief effort, the UK is one of the few countries providing long-term humanitarian assistance to the people of Burma. In October 2007, the UK announced that it would double its aid for the poorest people in Burma from £9 million per year to £18 million per year in 2010. Our support is delivered in accordance with the European common position—either through the UN or other reputable NGOs. None of it goes through the central Government.
	This is a very grave crisis, on a scale not seen since the tsunami of 2004. I want to assure the House that the British Government will continue to work to bring assistance and relief to the suffering people of Burma.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. Our thoughts and prayers are with the many thousands who have lost friends and relatives in this tragedy, and those who are struggling to survive the aftermath of this terrible disaster.
	It is clear that the situation in Burma is a massive humanitarian catastrophe, the like of which, as the Secretary of State said, has not been seen since the Asian tsunami of December 2004. People to whom I have spoken on the ground in the past few days are clear that the death toll will rise much further, and that as of now, hundreds of thousands of people are beyond the reach of the relief effort. The danger now is that hunger, disease and the lack of access to clean water and shelter will add to the suffering.
	I welcome the actions that the Secretary of State outlined in his statement. The staff at the Department for International Development are some of the finest development professionals in the world; their compassion, commitment and expertise have a vital role to play in this crisis. In particular, I salute the work of Rurik Marsden, who leads DFID's efforts in Burma, whom I met in Rangoon during my visit to Burma last year, and of our ambassador, Mark Canning, whose knowledge and insight are second to none at this time.
	It is already clear that British charities and NGOs are at the forefront of work on the ground. The outstanding British charity Save the Children, led in Rangoon by Andrew Kirkwood, has 35 offices and 500 staff on the ground in Burma. They have already been able to get help to 50,000 people. ActionAid, Merlin, Oxfam and World Vision are also extremely active.
	It is deeply regrettable that the Burmese Government have consistently run down and undermined the UN mission in Burma, not least by forcing out Charles Petrie, the impressive former head of the UN mission there. His experience and dynamism are sorely missed at this time of crisis. The Burmese people and the international relief effort are both the losers from that misjudgment by the Burmese junta. It is a scandal that five full days following the disaster, only a trickle of aid is getting in from the outside world. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the Burmese Government are still insisting on onerous visa restrictions for aid workers—and even if they get a visa, what guarantees have been received that they will be allowed to leave Rangoon without waiting up to two weeks for a travel permit? After the Bam earthquake of 2003, Iran waived visa restrictions on foreign relief workers for five days, letting in even people from America and Israel. This spirit should prevail again now.
	The Burmese Government must give unfettered access for the international humanitarian relief effort. A key lesson from the tsunami is the need for the international response to dovetail with the local relief effort; trying to go against the grain does not work. We need to persuade the Burmese authorities to be as co-operative as possible. This House can assure the Government of Burma today that the aid workers are there for non-political humanitarian reasons, to save lives, rather than for political positioning. What steps has the Secretary of State taken to make this clear to the Burmese Government?
	As the Secretary of State said, the key requirement now is for a comprehensive needs assessment by the UN, and a well-funded, professional and highly competent relief operation centred on food, clean water, shelter and medical relief. As we saw with the Asian tsunami, we need to know that the aid we give is exactly what is needed. Inappropriate aid can be worse than no aid at all.
	There are reports that the Burmese Government have finally decided to accept some of the United States relief flights. Can the Secretary of State update the House on this point?
	The regime's suspicion of outsiders is well documented, but we must also seek the support of Burma's cosy friends—China, India and Thailand, with whom the regime has worked closely. In the run-up to the Olympics, many eyes will be on China to examine the role that it plays in helping to ensure that the Burmese Government open up immediately to the international relief effort. What discussions has the Secretary of State had in recent days with the Chinese ambassador in London, Madam Fu Ying, and the representatives of India and Thailand, to underline this point?
	There are reports that the Burmese Government intend to impose taxes and duties on planes that bring in aid supplies. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether that is the case, and what representations the British Government have made to the Burmese Government to suspend these tariffs? In the aftermath of the tsunami, concern was expressed about the operation of gift aid tax relief on donations to the humanitarian appeal. At this early stage, what steps are the Government taking on this matter?
	It is impossible to talk about good coming out of this terrible event, but we saw in the Indonesian province of Aceh, which was devastated by the 2004 tsunami, that the shock and turmoil of a natural disaster can, in some circumstances, lead to movement and progress on thorny political conflicts, for the greater common good. Can the Secretary of State confirm that Aung San Suu Kyi, whose compound in Rangoon is vulnerable, overgrown and snake-ridden, is safe and well?
	Clearly all of us who have been vocal critics of this pariah regime will put politics to one side as we strive for an effective humanitarian response. Once again, I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and making his statement. In the same spirit, I hope that he will continue to keep the House informed through written and oral statements.

Douglas Alexander: Of course I am happy to give the final undertaking sought by the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the House is updated as the situation develops on the ground.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks about the staff of my Department. I match him in those remarks; if anything, I would say that they are quite literally the best in the world, not just among the best. I have spoken to Rurik Marsden, our head of office in Rangoon, in recent days. He is playing a key role in helping to co-ordinate our efforts on the ground along with his staff in that office.
	I am also grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his remarks yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, when he made clear the consensus that reaches across the House in support of the British and international effort to bring an end to the humanitarian suffering of the people of Burma. It is always helpful in these circumstances where there is genuine cross-party consensus in support of a humanitarian effort.
	I also join the hon. Gentleman in recognising the contribution made by British-based NGOs. There are already a number of teams on the ground in Burma who are taking forward important work.
	Let me turn to the other specific points made by the hon. Gentleman. I raised the issue of visa restrictions directly with the Burmese Government ambassador here in London. I urged him to ensure the expeditious passage of visa applications that are presently with the embassy, including those from DFID assessment staff, and made it clear that, given the number of applications that will be received from the international community, there was a strong case for a visa waiver. He undertook to reflect that in his correspondence with his Government.
	I also raised with the ambassador the concerns expressed to me at a meeting that I held with the British-based NGOs regarding access in-country. Effectively, an in-country domestic visa regime has been imposed in Burma for some time. Again I urged him to consider ensuring not simply that there is expeditious passage into Burma for humanitarian workers, but that there is free and ready access to those areas affected by the cyclone for workers within the country. Clearly, whether the Burmese Government deliver on the requests that I and others have made will be tested in the days to come, but that is a matter on which the House can be updated in due course.
	We have raised the matter directly with the ambassador here, and with Mark Canning, our ambassador in Rangoon. Representations have been made both to the senior general and to the Burmese Prime Minister. We have also activated our Foreign Office posts across the Association of South East Asian Nations region to ensure that those regional partners, who often can exert influence within Burma, are made aware of the points that the British Government have raised on free access for the humanitarian effort.
	I should inform the House that the best advice that we have in DFID is that a number of ASEAN nations have visa-free access to Burma. One of the conversations that we have had with British and international NGOs has been about encouraging them to consider whether they have staff based in the ASEAN countries who can readily access the country while visa applications are processed for others.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about relief flights, I have updated the House as to the best information that we have. It is encouraging, for example, that the recent World Food Programme flight that arrived saw its supplies unloaded today to the WFP warehouse, given that there were concerns that the army would commandeer the relief as it came in. On his specific point about contact with the Chinese Government, we have already initiated, through the UK mission to the UN, a discussion with the Chinese delegation to the UN, making them aware of the points that we have discussed here.
	The issue of duties being levied on incoming humanitarian supplies has been raised and my understanding is that the Government of Burma have made it clear that duty will not be levied on humanitarian aid and assistance. Again, that will be tested in the days to come and we shall see whether that undertaking is delivered on.
	On the hon. Gentleman's final two points, we have no indications of difficulty affecting Aung San Suu Kyi in terms of her residence. On gift aid, we will assess the requirement for any future changes to the Government's position in light of the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal that has been launched.

Jo Swinson: We are all shocked by the horrific scenes of destruction in Burma caused by cyclone Nargis—the massive loss of life, the homes swept away and the tide of chaos left in its wake. I very much welcome the Secretary of State coming to the House to give his statement and I thank him for prior sight of it.
	The Secretary of State outlined the problems of getting aid into the country, and these are causing us huge concern. There seems to be a small piece of positive news with regard to flights getting in and landing, but obviously that is not enough to deal with the scale of the problem and, indeed, it is much too late. Is the delay linked in any way to the constitutional referendum that was due to be held this weekend and the worry of the military junta that it would lead to foreign criticism if foreign nationals were allowed in? Is that the case? Is the referendum still planned to go ahead? Does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely unacceptable for the internal political concerns of the Burmese junta to stand in the way of getting aid to the thousands of people who are suffering?
	There are many political problems in Burma and we have great fears about the humanitarian situation; those are often raised in the House. Does the Secretary of State agree that the sole priority at the moment is to get the aid and the emergency response to the disaster? Indeed, it is important that we get the message out if that helps the military regime to allow the aid workers to get in.
	I very much welcome the £5 million of aid pledged by DFID. Is that additional to the current aid programme? Will that figure be under review, so that if the situation develops as we expect it will and the scale of the problem becomes greater, it could rise? It is also important that the aid be co-ordinated well. What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with our EU partners on encouraging them similarly to donate, and also on working together on that aid?
	I was interested to hear the point about visa-free access for nationals in the ASEAN countries. Is the Secretary of State having discussions with our teams there to encourage those countries to provide aid workers and to give aid? Clearly getting the regional powers involved is very important.
	There was no mention in the Secretary of State's statement of the number of UK nationals affected; I believe that the FCO says there are currently 17 Britons unaccounted for. What support is being made available for their families? Is there a helpline for those in the UK who are concerned about family or friends in Burma? Is there a central point to which they can go for information?
	The Secretary of State mentioned the tsunami. The British people were amazingly generous in donating to that appeal in 2004. Many of our constituents will be appalled by what they see on the television and by the pictures they see and will want to help. Is there a central appeal to which they are able to donate?

Douglas Alexander: Let me seek to address each of those points in turn. First, my understanding is that there are now indications that the constitutional referendum will be suspended in the areas affected by the cyclone, but if I am circumspect in my remarks today, it is merely to echo the sentiment that the hon. Lady expressed, which is that our sole priority today needs to be to get humanitarian aid to those directly affected by the cyclone. It was Condoleezza Rice, the United States Secretary of State, who said that this is not about politics but about getting humanitarian aid to those who require it. As the hon. Lady indicated, that needs to be the overriding sentiment behind our remarks today.
	There are and have been plenty of other opportunities for the House to discuss political developments within Burma. It is of course a matter to which we will all return, but if I am circumspect today, it reflects our determination to ensure that the message that we send to the Burmese regime is clear: the first priority today needs to be to ensure access to the international relief effort that is so urgently required on the ground.
	I can assure the hon. Lady that the £5 million is additional to the programme for Burma. Is it under review in the light of the developing situation on the ground? I can give her that assurance; yes, it is under review. On the extent to which we are co-ordinating our efforts, there are established mechanisms. We have been in touch with ECHO, the co-ordination mechanism for humanitarian assistance at a European level, and with John Holmes, the UN emergency co-ordinator.
	In relation to work being taken forward with ASEAN countries, we have been in touch with each of our Foreign Office posts in the ASEAN countries and they are in dialogue with the respective Governments.
	On UK nationals, I, too, have seen some of the media reports indicating the number of people who have not yet been contacted. I would not wish to heighten the anxiety of anybody who may have relatives whom they know are in Burma. Mark Canning was clear that we had not yet received any indications that individual British citizens were in difficulty, of which we were aware very quickly following the tsunami. He emphasised that the British population in Burma—people travelling in Burma as well as those resident there—is relatively small but widely dispersed across a country that has limited communications. It will therefore inevitably take time to account for even the limited British population there, but I can give the House an assurance that that work is under way from our post in Rangoon.
	On how best to provide information to anyone who is concerned about relatives, I would make a plea for them to contact the Foreign Office. Their first port of call should be the Foreign Office website. Historically, people have come to trust its advice to travellers, and I undertake to raise this matter with my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office following this statement.
	On the question of how our constituents can reflect the generosity of spirit that was so evident at the time of the tsunami in relation to this particular disaster, the Disasters Emergency Committee has launched an appeal today. I understand that there are adverts for the appeal in British newspapers today, and it is anticipated that there will be broadcast advertisements this evening. So there will be publicity on how members of the public can register their support for the efforts being made by the British Government and British NGOs.

Denis MacShane: Is it not clear that tens, possibly scores, of thousands of Burmese have died in the past two days because of the failure of the Burmese dictatorship to allow aid workers in and to allow the navies of the world to go to help? This issue must be raised at the highest level. When such things happen in Darfur or Rwanda, we call it genocide, and that is what I accuse the Burmese junta of organising this week. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to support the French Government at the United Nations in invoking the right-to-protect article of the UN charter, which states that when a country ceases to protect its citizens, the international community has a right and a duty to intervene? Will he also make that clear to China, Thailand and India?

Douglas Alexander: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware, as a distinguished former Minister in the Foreign Office, that the responsibility to protect was conceived to address four defined situations in which Governments have failed to protect their people: war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. I am not going to echo his sentiments in relation to the Government of Burma. A great deal of work is being done to assess exactly what access is being made available, and I can assure him that representations are being made to the Government of Burma through multilateral and bilateral channels. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to recognise the overriding importance of securing access, rather than securing headlines. It is important that we gain access to Burma to provide the humanitarian assistance that is urgently needed. There will be plenty of opportunities in the future to assess the performance of the Government of Burma and of the wider international community. As we stand here today, the priority is to ensure access for the humanitarian supplies, and I can assure the House that that is my overriding priority.

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, and I very much appreciate the work of DFID staff in providing the support that he has described. Will he acknowledge, however, that many people will die—and have died—because they have already been weakened by the lack of support from their own Government? Surely we must stress to that Government that people are dying daily because of their inaction. This is the moment when that regime must finally recognise that it is dependent on the international community. If it cares for its people at all, this is the time for it to demonstrate that by giving full and free access. If it fails to do so, it will stand indicted of precisely the accusation that the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) levelled against it.

Douglas Alexander: I find myself in complete agreement with the measured remarks of the distinguished Chair of the International Development Committee. As I said in my statement, there is a continuing crisis afflicting Burma. The tragedy that has unfolded over the past five days shows that that continuing crisis has now been compounded by a natural disaster. The right hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that many of the people in the Irrawaddy delta are desperately poor as a consequence of the range of factors affecting their lives, not least the conduct of their Government over recent decades. While there is an opportunity to say more at this stage, I believe that the priority must be to ensure the access to which he has referred.

Chris Bryant: I am sure that the Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that when people are starving, have no access to clean water and have lost their homes, the most important thing is to get support to them so that they can achieve a decent life. However, there is a political reality involved. Surely it would be wrong if a single penny of British international development money went into the pockets of the army or into supporting a corrupt and despicable regime that has killed many people. Should we not adhere to the vital principle that the money should go directly to ensuring that people have the opportunity to live, rather than ensuring that a general has the opportunity to stay in his chauffeur-driven car?

Douglas Alexander: I share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. This is why, historically, we have worked not only with the United Nations but with credible and accredited international partners. That is the approach that we will adopt in relation to the expenditure of the up to £5 million that we announced immediately after the disaster. Of course it is vital to ensure that people have confidence that the money that they are contributing individually, or that their Government are contributing, to the humanitarian effort reaches the people who require assistance. That has been our approach to Burma, it is our approach to Burma, and it will continue to be our approach to Burma.

Andrew MacKay: The Secretary of State is clearly right to say that the highest priority is to gain access for humanitarian aid. As it is obvious that the Chinese Government have considerable influence over the dictatorship that is preventing the aid from coming in, should not more be done to persuade the Chinese? Should we not also take bilateral action, with the Secretary of State speaking to the Chinese ambassador in London and with the Prime Minister making direct contact with his opposite number in Beijing? The Chinese must be the key to getting aid in as a matter of great urgency in the next 24 hours.

Douglas Alexander: There is no single silver-bullet solution to ensure the kind of access that Members on both sides of the House want to see, but I will certainly consider the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and discuss the matter with the Foreign Office.

David Drew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and DFID in general, and in particular Mark Canning, whom we had the opportunity to meet in the House about a month ago. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the minority peoples in Burma, particularly the Karen and the Karenni, are able to access aid? More particularly, will he ensure that the despicable regime does not use this disaster as an opportunity further to attack those people, using the pretence that they could be responsible for instability?

Douglas Alexander: We have worked for many years to secure relief efforts and humanitarian support for a range of groups in Burma, including those that my hon. Friend describes. It will continue to be our guiding principle that we should get the aid to those who require it, regardless of their ethnic origin or of the view that the Burmese regime holds of any particular group in that country.

John Bercow: I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his measured statement today. However, the inescapable reality is that the crisis caused by the cyclone has been greatly exacerbated by the additional reality that the people of Burma continue to languish under one of the most tyrannical and callous regimes to be found anywhere on the face of the earth. On my understanding, six days on, there are but four representatives of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs on the ground in Burma, while, despicably, no fewer than 100 disaster relief teams are waiting at the borders but have not yet been given visas.
	Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is now a compelling case for Britain publicly to get behind the French position at the United Nations Security Council, to invoke the responsibility to protect and to say to the Government of Burma, "If you want us to help, it will be on the basis that we are protecting people on humanitarian terms." They should let us in, or we will go in and do what is necessary to prevent the genocide, as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) so rightly described it.

Douglas Alexander: Let me deal with both those points in turn. In relation to the OCHA assessment teams gaining access to the country, it is for exactly that reason that I raised the issue with the Burmese ambassador. I have also spoken directly to John Holmes of OCHA. When I spoke to him yesterday, he was keen to ensure that, while representations were being made, a careful and measured assessment should be made of what is actually happening on the ground. In that sense, of course we will continue to stay in touch with OCHA and of course we want OCHA assessment teams to have access. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will continue to liaise with OCHA to ensure that that access is forthcoming.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second point, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had discussions with Bernard Kouchner. I understand that an article that appeared in a French newspaper this morning about the urgency of getting humanitarian relief to Burma was co-authored by my right hon. Friend and the French Foreign Minister. However, I repeat that the first priority has to be to get humanitarian access: in the days, weeks and months to come, there will be plenty of opportunity to assess both the steps that need to be taken and Burma's position in the international community. The priority now is international access.

Alistair Burt: I want to pick up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said about the possibilities for the future. What understanding does the Minister believe that the Burma regime has that access is not a short-term exercise? Our experience of other disasters such as the tsunami suggests that the need for free access will continue for a long time. Is the regime aware of that? Is that access being negotiated now, in the immediacy of the present situation?

Douglas Alexander: I sincerely wish that I could give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks, but I am not in a position to do so. We have made it clear that the requirement for immediate and free access means that we need visas to get into the country and then be able to travel freely to the affected areas. We will be able to judge in the days to come whether that access is forthcoming, but the hon. Gentleman is right that the scale of the devastation inflicted by the cyclone on the southern part of Burma means that it is inevitable that there will be very significant reconstruction requirements. Those requirements would test an environment that was far more prosperous and stable than Burma is today, but the immediate priority is to get the assessment teams on the ground. We will be in a better position to have the dialogue to which the hon. Gentleman refers—whether through interlocutors or directly with the Burmese Government—once we have the response of the assessment teams presently endeavouring to get into the country.

Philip Hollobone: In humanitarian emergencies, access to clean water is often one of the most pressing problems. Water is heavy, bulky and difficult to carry by air. Sometimes, inadequate road networks mean that it is even difficult to carry by lorry. What priory is DFID giving to ensuring that clean water is provided as soon as possible to those in difficulties? Are teams of water engineers on stand-by to go to Burma, if necessary?

Douglas Alexander: That effort would require more than my Department's support. We have an assessment team ready to travel to Burma, and we have staff at the Burmese embassy in London at the moment trying to secure travel visas. As soon as the visas are secured, the assessment team will travel. The team's principal responsibility will be to join other international assessment teams already on the ground in Burma, and they are largely made up of people from various countries who were in-country when the cyclone hit the coastline. We will use the assessment that we receive to judge the most immediate humanitarian requirements.
	The hon. Gentleman is of course right to recognise that water—along with food, shelter and medicines—is likely to be one of the immediate requirements. However, we need to get the assessment teams in to make the sort of judgments that he suggests.

Robert Smith: I want to reinforce the message that hon. Members of all parties have put across: that the Burmese regime has greatly weakened the country, but that this major natural disaster has left it in an even more perilous state than before. Clearly, urgent and immediate action is needed. On a practical level, the Secretary of State will know that the International Development Committee was concerned about the reduction in the size of the Bangkok office. What role has the British presence there played in co-ordinating the response in the region before we get access to the country?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman raises a very valid point, but this is a work in progress. A senior member of the DFID staff is on the point of travelling to Bangkok in the days to come but, until we know where the international effort will be co-ordinated from, it is unclear what our staffing requirements will be. It is likely—although this will be resolved in the days to come—that many international agencies will be based in Bangkok. If so, the size of our staff complement in Bangkok, as distinct from Rangoon, will be based on the judgments that we make. I have already discussed with senior departmental officials the possibility that we may need to supplement our teams in the region, whether in Rangoon or Bangkok. However, the international community will decide in the days to come where the co-ordination will take place.

Defence in the World

[ Relevant documents :  Thirteenth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2006-07, on UK Operations in Afghanistan, HC 408 and the Government's response (Thirteenth Special Report, Session 2006-07, HC 1024); First Report from the Committee, Session 2007-08, on UK land operations in Iraq 2007, HC 110, and the Government's response (Second Special Report, Session 2007-08, HC 352); and the Ninth Report, Session 2007-08, on the future of NATO and European defence, HC111.]

Des Browne: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of defence in the world.
	I welcome this opportunity to debate the role of defence in the world. Given the limits that we have imposed on ourselves for these debates, I do not have time to go into detail about how all our assets are working together to prevent and resolve conflicts around the world. I will therefore focus my comments on those areas that are most pressing and which have rightly attracted the attention of many hon. Members—namely, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Time and interventions permitting, I shall also address directly the issue of ballistic missile defence.
	In his leadership campaign, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) promised to drag me to the Dispatch Box—that may be a paraphrase, but I do not think that it does him an injustice—to discuss ballistic missile defence. I have waited and waited, however, but he has done no such thing. Then again, the Liberal Democrats have been promising to do that for the best part of two years now, and the issue has warranted only one or two interventions from them in any debate, so I suppose that a Liberal Democrat promise is made to be broken.

Nick Harvey: We had two particular objections to the ballistic missile defence programme proposed by the Americans—it did not have the blessing or support of fellow NATO members, and there did not appear to be any meaningful dialogue with the Russians about what was being proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), my colleagues and I have been delighted to note that both those substantive misgivings have faded away materially in recent months. NATO has now embraced the programme, which can no longer be portrayed as a simply American initiative, and a much more productive dialogue appears to be taking place with the Russians about the nature of the defence. I notice some surprise on the Secretary of State's face, and he may want to elaborate on those points. In a sense, however, much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam was saying has been overtaken by events.

Des Browne: I am glad to have been able to drag the hon. Gentleman to his feet, and I shall deal in more detail with the ballistic missile defence programme later in my speech, but none of what he said is new to those of us who are involved in discussing the matter with the US, our NATO allies and Russia. The process has been going on for a considerable time. If the developments that have been happening quite overtly have come to the attention of the Liberal Democrats and allayed their concerns, I shall be pleased to hear that they now support the position in relation to ballistic missile defence that NATO has adopted for a long time.

Paul Keetch: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Des Browne: I shall not give way any more on this matter, as I shall deal with it specifically in my speech. I am absolutely certain that my speech will pre-empt the point that the hon. Gentleman wants to make. I am sure that, in his closing remarks, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will seek to address any concerns that go beyond the ones that I raise in the debate.
	The Government's collective aim is to shape the international environment to protect our citizens, promote our economy and defend our values. The global context in which we operate to achieve that has already been well documented, in the strategic defence review and its supplementary documents and annexes, and most recently in the national security strategy. Those documents identify the threats arising from terrorism, failed and failing states, weapons proliferation and competition for natural resources. Now, other factors such as competition for food and water and a global economic slowdown add to the complexity of that environment. We recognise those challenges, which surpass political borders. They are collective challenges, and occasionally they generate individual threats.

Philip Hollobone: Is not the context of this debate the fact that although the United Kingdom has, pro rata, the best armed forces in the world and we regularly punch above our weight in international conflicts, all too often our allies, who should know better, do not give us, and the United States, the support that we deserve?

Des Browne: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for, in an early intervention, putting his finger on an issue that we need to address in the context of this debate. The simplistic answer is to agree with him, but it is not as simple as that, as he knows. The ability of our allies to punch their weight or to step up to the plate, to use two of the phrases that are constantly used in this debate, is a function of political will, capability and capacity. In the whole history of this debate, and in the comparatively short period for which I have been Secretary of State for Defence, I have seen dramatic improvements in that regard. Certain countries have gone from being renowned for being able to contribute to peacekeeping missions to being war-fighting countries that are now able to deploy their forces with effect in very difficult circumstances. Many countries punch above their weight in relation to the size of their armed forces. Other countries have used their engagement in NATO, particularly in Afghanistan, to transform their armed forces in the way that I have described.
	Without going into the detail of all those countries—there are many good examples—I would say two things about what is often the litmus test: namely, which NATO countries are in the difficult parts of Afghanistan. First, when NATO met in Riga last year there were, if I recollect correctly, about 32,000 ISAF—international security assistance force—forces there, predominantly NATO forces. When it met in Bucharest, there were 47,000. That is a significant increase, and there have been additional forces since then. Secondly, of the countries that are members of NATO, whether newer or long-standing members, slightly less than 50 per cent. are represented in the south or the east of the country. Those two broad statistics generally indicate the direction of travel. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is right, but our allies are aware of it and they are making progress.

Bob Russell: Can the Secretary of State clarify how many countries have deployed troops to southern Afghanistan? Before the President of France's recent visit to this country, it was widely trailed that France would be deploying troops to southern Afghanistan. Have there been any developments in that direction?

Des Browne: There have been significant developments in that direction in the sense that the French have agreed to deploy troops to the east of Afghanistan and, in turn, the United States of America has deployed troops to Kandahar to fulfil what have become known as the Manley conditions, which were the conditions attached to the report on the Canadians' commitment to southern Afghanistan. I have figures in my head but I am not entirely sure if I remember them accurately. If the hon. Gentleman wants those figures, I am happy to provide them, but they are already in the public domain. NATO has a website that makes available to the public the specific figures relating to which countries have deployed what resources to where. They are not in any sense kept under wraps. If right hon. and hon. Members wish to have access to that information, it might be less expensive to the British Exchequer if they checked on the NATO website instead of constantly asking questions of me. I am happy to be asked about those figures—I am making a slightly facetious point—but they are in the public domain.

Lindsay Hoyle: Is it not fair to say that the weight has been on the few and our NATO allies have been shy in coming forward, but now NATO is showing a greater commitment and the countries that have shied away in the past are beginning to come forward, and that that is the matter of fact and the basis on which we must proceed?

Des Browne: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have repeatedly debated and discussed this matter, and I have repeatedly answered questions on it from the Dispatch Box. I have always had a realistic approach to it. It is a function of capacity, appropriate capability and political will. An increasing number of nations are showing the political will and developing their capacity and capability to deploy. Let me take the example of helicopters, which exercises this House. There are many thousands of helicopters throughout the world. It is debatable whether they are all well equipped enough to be capable of safe deployment into the environment of southern Afghanistan, for example, where helicopters are now flown routinely in a way in which, in the recent past, they would have been flown only by people with very special skills. That is why, in the context of the NATO summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an initiative to enable the equipping and training of the pilots of those helicopters to allow their deployment. It is not just a question of saying, "That country doesn't have people there"—we have to ask ourselves, "Does that country have the deployable capability, and would we want those resources to be deployed alongside our own forces in that environment?" We are improving in all those respects in the international community and with our allies daily. That is reflected in my hon. Friend's comments.

Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State, as indeed we all are, for his giving way. He mentions the importance of helicopters, which we all accept are doing a fantastic job in Afghanistan and in Iraq. However, the current version of the Lynx helicopter is not up to speed in those conditions. What is the score on the future Lynx programme, given the persistent press reports that the contract is about to be scrapped, leaving the United Kingdom with inadequate helicopter forces?

Des Browne: It is well known that the Department goes through a process of regularly reviewing its equipment programme; it would be irresponsible not to do so. Every time that process is gone through, there is speculation. The Lynx contract is extant—it is part of the procurement programme. I have made it perfectly clear that while that process is going on I will not get engaged in giving answers to people by identifying and salami-slicing elements of the programme. With respect to the hon. Gentleman—I understand why he asks—I am not prepared to respond to every piece of speculation. I give the House the assurance that if any decisions are made to change the status quo in relation to any part or planned part of our programme, I will make an announcement to the House.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Des Browne: I do not intend to get diverted into a debate about procurement or equipment issues. I have a number of points to make, and I am conscious of a sense in the House that Front Benchers should not dominate these debates and there should be time for Back Benchers to contribute.
	Currently, British forces are operational across more than 12 nations, whether patrolling the South Atlantic, policing international borders in Cyprus or capacity- building in Sierra Leone, to name but three of the tasks that they take on. Our troops are all working towards a common aim—international stability.
	With the operational focus often on Iraq and Afghanistan, we should not forget our commitments to Kosovo. The UK contributes around 200 troops to the NATO operation in Kosovo and continues to support security sector reform throughout the region. We should not forget our achievements there. Where once there was sectarian violence and bloodshed, there is now economic development, stability and functioning democracy. In February, the Government of Kosovo declared independence. At the time, they made it clear that Kosovo would be a democratic, secular and multi-ethnic republic and that its leaders would promote the rights and participation of all communities there. Since then, there has been steady progress by the Government of Kosovo and international authorities in meeting the obligations contained in the United Nations comprehensive proposal for a status settlement in Kosovo. The security situation has remained calm, albeit tense, and there have been sporadic incidents of violence. There is no place for violence in Kosovo, now or in the future, and the UK remains committed to promoting a stable, secure and prosperous Balkan region moving towards European and Euro-Atlantic integration.
	As the House is aware, we are preparing to send 2nd Battalion, The Rifles to Kosovo in its role as the NATO Balkans operational reserve force. The UK ORF battalion will play an important role by reassuring all parties to the situation in Kosovo that the international community and the UK will maintain their commitment to preserving peace and stability in the region. We are well prepared to meet that long-standing commitment, which we share with our NATO allies. By planning ahead, we have ensured that the UK ORF battalion has been properly force-generated and that the impact on other operations will be minimal.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has quite properly raised a number of questions about that deployment. Let me take the opportunity to address the points that he has put into the public domain. First, he asked why we made the announcement on 29 April rather than on 28 April at Defence questions. The reason for that is quite simple. The decision to commit the ORF was not taken on the 28th—it was taken on the morning of 29 April at the Cabinet meeting that morning. Consequently, we announced the deployment to the House as soon as practicable thereafter, at 2 o'clock that same afternoon.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how much the deployment would cost and where the money would come from. We estimate the cost to be around £6 million and it will be met in full from the reserve, bringing our estimated costs for our deployments to Kosovo to £28.5 million during 2008-09. It is interesting to note that the cost of our deployment there in 2003-04 was £186 million. As conditions have improved in Kosovo, the costs to the UK of our presence have fallen significantly. He asked about the impact that the ORF deployment would have on our strategic airlift capability and whether it would undermine our air bridge to Iraq and Afghanistan. Since we forward-based the heavy equipment in Kosovo at the start of our commitment to the ORF and since we will be deploying the personnel to Kosovo by civilian charter, the answers to those questions are respectively none and no.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government did not have the courage to come to the House to debate the issues behind the ORF deployment. As every hon. Member can see, that is not true. I am here now, and we have not yet deployed one of those members of the ORF to Kosovo. Let me point out that we are talking not about a new commitment, but about the deployment of a standing commitment, which does not in fact deploy until the end of this month. I am here now to debate the issues and will happily debate the ORF with the hon. Gentleman and any other Member for as long as I am permitted to do so.

Tobias Ellwood: The 2nd Battalion, The Rifles is the battalion with which I served and I hope that the House wishes it well in its deployment to Kosovo. However, the regiment has just returned from Iraq, so I ask the Secretary of State: has enough time been given for the battalion to re-engage with families and to retrain before it takes up that other commitment? The biggest question Britons will be asking is why it is yet again the British who are stepping forward when there is so much pressure on our armed services and while the rest of Europe seems to turn a blind eye to the problems in Kosovo.

Des Browne: First, the hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to those forces whom he served with, and as he would expect, they are greatly looking forward to going. They are confident that they will do an excellent job there, just as they did in Iraq, and that they will do so in future, if they are ever deployed again. There are 18,000 troops from the international community in Kosovo, so it is not right to say that other countries are not bearing their share of the burden of peacekeeping there. Sometimes when I consider the number of troops there, in an area the size of Wales, I draw another conclusion with regard to the number of troops we are able to deploy to other theatres. The hon. Gentleman's point is worth making as a debating point, but it is not factually correct.

Chris Bryant: Following on from my right hon. Friend's point about the number of troops in Kosovo, many of us were delighted when we were able to say that we no longer needed to have a presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For many of us it therefore seems distressing that we now have to send another set of troops to operate out of Pristina. How long does he think that European troops will have to be there in the sort of numbers there at present? If he is not able to answer that question, how will he know, and how will Europe know, when we no longer need to be present?

Des Browne: Broadly, although the situation in Kosovo has to be nurtured and encouraged step by step, most people think that progress is being made. Progress is evident throughout the Balkans.
	First, we should not see the deployment of the operational reserve force, which is being done after careful consideration by the commander of NATO forces of the appearance he needs to present to give security on the ground, as an indication of regression. It is an indication of progress. Secondly, we have been committed for some time, with other countries, to provide the ORF to Kosovo—I think that the commitment goes back to 2003, but if I am incorrect, I shall correct the record. We have been on standby, as it were, at various stages of readiness to take action along with other countries. Other countries have fulfilled this role. We are at the highest state of readiness at this time, and it is right that we should fulfil our commitment.
	We are not expected to do something in Kosovo that others are not prepared to do, as some have suggested. I repeat the point I made earlier: there are 18,000 troops from countries throughout the world in Kosovo. We are able to see the progress that is taking place because of that level of commitment. If the commanders who achieved that, working with others and the broader international community, suggest that something needs to be done and make a request, it is entirely appropriate that we respond. Of course, we need to take into account the effect on our troops and their families. We would not send the battalion if we felt we were affecting its ability to recuperate from operational deployment to Iraq or its ability to retrain and be ready for further deployment, should that be necessary in the future.

Paul Keetch: Would the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that we are talking not about European troops deployed elsewhere, but about European troops in Europe? The achievement of British and European troops in Kosovo—indeed, throughout the former Yugoslav republics—has a direct impact on the security of the UK and the livelihoods of all our constituents. We should be congratulating the Government on taking responsibility for making a short-term deployment at this time. It is better that we do it now, in a measured and careful way, than find ourselves having to make a much larger commitment in six months or so. The long-term good and prosperity of Kosovo is good for all of our nations, not just the people of that region.

Des Browne: I am always happy to accept congratulations for the Government, no matter where they come from— [ Laughter. ] I should be more gracious to the hon. Gentleman; he made a very good point. I am reluctant to accede to it, however, lest that be interpreted to mean that I think that the borders of Europe define where the borders of our security lie. The reality of the modern world suggests that the front line of our security can be quite far away from the borders of Europe, or indeed our own borders. His point is absolutely correct, however, and instead of interpreting every move, particularly a military move, as a function of failure, we should understand that it is our ability to change the levels of our forces as we have in the Balkans, and to use them to give a degree of security and stability to allow complementary civil work to take place, that has resulted in the painstaking progress made over more than a decade to bring that region its current stability. It also allows us to welcome the component elements of the former Yugoslavia into not only Europe but a Euro-Atlantic relationship, which reinforces what we have achieved. Indeed, we should congratulate ourselves—hon. Members of all parties, this country and our wider alliances—on our achievements, because it did not look as though we could piece things back together in that way.

David Drew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the steps he has taken on Kosovo, which is a function of our ability to recruit people to our armed forces. Has he taken the opportunity to talk to the National Union of Teachers about its policy of making it increasingly difficult for our armed forces to speak to young people who might want to pursue a military career? Will he say now that it is important to have armed forces that undertake peacekeeping and that the NUT should understand that?

Des Browne: I reassure my hon. Friend that many debates that NUT meetings generate have the opposite effect from the one that the NUT seeks to achieve. I am not aware of evidence to suggest a reduction in head teachers' interest in having members of our armed forces make the important contribution that they have made for generations to the education of our young people. All hon. Members and the wider community know that our young people have much more to learn from what the armed forces can show them about their way of life, standards, discipline, loyalty and comradeship than to fear from engaging with our armed forces in the context of controlled exposure to what the world is like. I have no doubt that, as the public expression of admiration for our armed forces increases, as is happening exponentially throughout the country, more and more will be invited into schools to share with young people the way in which the chemistry works.
	My anxiety about our armed forces' engagement with the education system is that I will be accused of allowing too much of it and people will say that I am overstretching them by allowing them to do too much across the education estate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) need not fear. Sometimes, I am grateful when extreme issues are put in the public domain because they allow people to approach the subject in a more measured and sensible way than at first appears.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for their work to ensure that we mark the contribution of our servicemen and women through Veterans day. Does he agree that working through the veterans' associations and bringing them into play in our education system on Veterans day and other occasions is a good way of ensuring that people have a rounded and well founded view of the role of our armed services?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend puts her finger on one of the key aims of Veterans day—a day of appropriate celebration, to which we all look forward. One of the potential benefits of veterans' badges is that young people and communities can identify by that simple method people who have experience of the armed forces and who can engage with young people. I know from my constituency that young people are hungry to hear about such experiences, which many will never have but greatly admire. They can learn much from them. On many occasions, I have seen veterans, especially those of service from many years ago, keep young children in raptures with the stories of their experiences. It is a wonderful part of life. I do not wish to be trite, but passing on such oral history from generation to generation is part of being British.
	In Afghanistan, our forces are working to ensure that that benighted country never again becomes a base for international terrorists. The events of September 2001 demonstrate clearly that, in a global world, the counter-terrorist front line is often far from our domestic borders. We must and will maintain deployable, expeditionary forces able to meet that challenge, wherever it confronts us.
	I regularly visit our troops in Afghanistan. On each occasion, I am highly impressed by their professional conduct and high morale in extremely challenging conditions. That reaction is common among all those who visit them, and I know that many hon. Members have done so, for which I commend them.

Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Des Browne: I am conscious of the time that I have been on my feet and the many pages that remain in front of me, but I will give way, given that my hon. Friend is one of those who have visited our troops.

Kevan Jones: Like other members of the Defence Committee, I value those visits because they give us an insight into what happens on the ground. It also makes us proud to see those men and women working very hard. However, the Ministry is putting the visits in jeopardy. On our latest visit, we were told that we will have to undergo a medical and fitness test before any Member of Parliament is allowed to go on future visits. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that because I am sure that some of us are not as fit as others and may not pass the test?

Hon. Members: How fit is the Secretary of State?

Des Browne: The matter needs to be looked into quickly. I will take it away and get back to my hon. Friend. I have not been challenged about that, but I think that I need to look into it.
	As well as being impressed by the professionalism and morale of our servicemen and women in Afghanistan, I have also seen for myself the positive impact that our troops are making there. That applies not only to them but to others deployed in a supporting civilian capacity, including civil servants from the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and others. They are collectively making a positive impact by creating a secure environment so that Afghans can go about their lives as they wish.
	I have listened to our troops tell me that the equipment that they now use is the best that they have ever had. That is their opinion and it is also mine. In the last financial year alone, we delivered equipment worth more than £4.5 billion to the armed forces. Better personal protection and weapons, new armour, new vehicles, new surveillance capabilities and more helicopters have not gone unnoticed by those on the front line. I am sure that all hon. Members know about the quotation from the current brigadier in Afghanistan about the equipment there. Our procurement programme is now paying substantial dividends.
	We, along with the international community, must continue to support the Afghan Government, and we are doing that.

Liam Fox: On a point of clarification, the Secretary of State recently made a statement on the future rapid effect system programme, which is vital to what he is discussing. He announced that Pirhana 5 from General Dynamics is the preferred design. We want to ask several questions about that because he said that it would be subject to the completion of a package of work on risk reduction and that then it would be made available at the earliest opportunity. What do those terms mean, and what now constitutes the earliest opportunity for FRES to be delivered?

Des Browne: We will not be in a position to announce the in-service date for FRES until the main investment decision is taken. In essence, the decision is announced as a provisional preferred decision, because there is more work to do to ensure that we deliver the best capability and secure the best deal for defence and the taxpayer. Of course, that work will be done with the appropriate haste, when we are in a position to announce the outcome of that work, including on risk reduction, and I will make further announcements to the House. I am not in a position to anticipate when a programme of work will be completed from the start point, but it will be completed with appropriate haste to give respect to the issues that need to be dealt with.

Willie Rennie: I hear what the Secretary of State says about improved security in Afghanistan. I often think that the poppy crop is an indicator of security in the country. I have heard the various policies that he has espoused to tackle the poppy crop, but it has increased year upon year. In fact, it was lower in the Taliban years than it is now. Can the Secretary of State explain why we have not managed to tackle the poppy crop?

Des Browne: I would not rely entirely on the statistics published by the Taliban on the size of the poppy crop when they were running the country. The Taliban held out to the public the view that they were opposed to the production of opium, but there is clear evidence that they were controlling it, while telling the international community—and even persuading some members—the opposite. The Taliban's current behaviour, along with that of other insurgents in Afghanistan, does not suggest to me that they are a reliable source of information on the state of production at that time.
	There is no doubt that the growth of poppies and the production of opium and their relationship with the insurgency are serious and important issues. Significant progress has been made in making large parts of Afghanistan poppy-free. That is independently assessed and reported on by the United Nations. There has been a concentration of poppy growth in the areas that are least secure, which happen to be the most difficult areas—the parts of the country where, by and large, there has never been any governance. Those parts also happen to be predominantly in the southern part of the country, where we and others are trying to engage the Taliban and other insurgents.
	There is no doubt that the Taliban and other insurgents are taking advantage of the security situation in those areas to exploit their hold over the local population through the growth of poppies. Progress is increasingly being made in delivering security, but we need to move beyond that, to the key to reducing the growth of poppies, which is to provide alternative livelihoods. That is not just about saying—as we can, of course—that almost anything will grow in the Helmand river valley during the growing season, for example, when that soil and water are put together; it is about providing a crop that will produce cash. In order to do that, the broad infrastructure needs to be built, so that people can get crops to the market and sell them, and make a living. That is what we are concentrating on, and I shall come to some statistics on the progress being made later.
	I am eternally grateful for the support that that incremental approach, with all the pillars of the anti-narcotics strategy that we have signed up to, consistently receives in the House. There is no simple solution to the problem. Aerial spraying will not deal with it, and neither will buying the poppy crop from the farmers. I notice that on his blog the hon. Member for Woodspring recently expressed a remarkably unqualified degree of support for buying the poppy crop in Afghanistan—if I have misinterpreted him, he can no doubt deal with that. I do not believe that to be the solution, nor do I understand it to be the Opposition's policy—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was just expressing a personal view.
	However, that policy is not the solution, for the simple reason that the country just does not have the infrastructure to ensure that it targets the sole poppy crop. I am certain that if we offered to buy the poppy crop, as many people encourage us to do, the poppy crop would double. There would be no reason for the narcotics dealers to give up trying to get farmers to grow more. Despite the size of the crop, farmers currently grow poppies on only about 4 per cent. of the arable land in Afghanistan, so there is plenty of room for expansion. We just need to work painstakingly through the problem. There are some indications, with the way commodity prices are going, that the growing of wheat, for example, is becoming increasingly attractive to Afghan farmers, for obvious reasons. We need to work on the problem and make progress across the international community, but we also need to make progress on the complementary aspects, including the criminal justice system, by getting some of the big boys before the courts and into jail.

Linda Gilroy: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. Does he not agree that another important part of the complex situation that we need to tackle—indeed, we are responsible for taking the lead—is ensuring that the drug dealers at the highest levels in Afghanistan are dealt with? When my right hon. Friend next meets President Karzai, will he ensure that he understands that Members of Parliament representing constituencies such as mine, which supplies many of the marines to fight in Afghanistan, are looking to him to deal with the situation as a matter of urgency?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend makes another good point, which reinforces the part of my response to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) that I had reached when I allowed her to intervene. It is important that key narcotics barons are taken out, brought before the courts and given exemplary sentences. It is key, too, that there should be a commitment from the top of the Afghan Government to that process and to eradicating corruption, which is a particular difficulty in some parts of the structure of Afghanistan, if not endemic.
	However, we have to understand where the country has come from. The message that my hon. Friend articulated so well is given by every interlocutor—not just from this Government, but from the whole international community—to President Karzai. He is a man who faces a significant challenge in leading his country, but he is in no doubt that dealing with corruption and drug dealers is an important priority for those of us making the sort of contribution that she describes to the security and future of his country.

Tobias Ellwood: rose—

Des Browne: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has some knowledge and even, dare I say, expertise.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for that comment. On my previous visit, I was shocked to learn that the international security assistance force continues to fly in more than 90,000 bottles of water every week for the ISAF troops. The Secretary of State mentioned infrastructure, which must be the key to solving Afghanistan. We could do more if we bought local produce. Everything in Lashkar Gar is ferried in from many miles away. With 7,000 people, the Dutch provincial reconstruction team is in a town and could help to support the local community, but it does not do so in any way, fashion or form, in the sense that it does not buy a single apple locally. That can all change if we start purchasing things locally. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that he will see what can be done about purchasing more local produce?

Des Browne: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but with respect, there is a balance to be struck. Having growing communities depend on garrisons is not sustainable either. That of course does not undermine his point about bottled water, which is an impressive point. I shall make inquiries off the back of that point, and I am certain that I shall uncover a mixed picture. I know that our significant development in Camp Bastion puts a large amount of money into the local community because, apart from anything else, we employ local people. I will try to find out the picture across ISAF; I will write to the hon. Gentleman and put my response in the Library so that all Members can access the information.
	As I was saying, we, along with the international community, must continue to support the Afghan Government, which is what we are doing. That is why all 40 troop-contributing nations to ISAF reaffirmed in Bucharest their commitment to Afghanistan, and why many—notably the French, who will deploy an additional battalion to regional command east—made additional contributions of troops. The United States has deployed a marine expeditionary unit of 3,000 personnel to southern Afghanistan. They are working closely and effectively with UK forces, complementing our efforts and allowing us to spread the writ of the Afghan Government further and faster.
	We fully support the appointment of Kai Eide, the new special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, to facilitate better co-ordination of the international community's efforts in Afghanistan. There is already evidence that he is having a significant effect. His appointment will ensure that we are able to optimise the delivery of reconstruction and development into the security space that is being created by the courage and professionalism of our armed forces. That will be the decisive act in our mission in Afghanistan.
	Ultimately, this will be delivered through the Afghan national development strategy, which is the vision of the Afghan Government themselves to improve conditions for their people. I look forward to the Paris conference, to be held in June this year, where members of the international community will come together again to refine and co-ordinate the implementation of the whole strategy. The road ahead will not always be easy—there will be setbacks—but there is mounting evidence that we are making real progress. Security is taking root in many areas and basic services are improving. The Taliban, who once boasted that they would drive ISAF out of Afghanistan, have themselves been driven from large areas of the country.
	About 60 per cent. of Afghanistan is relatively stable, with no or very few security incidents. Since 1 January, 91 per cent. of insurgent activity has originated in just 8 per cent. of Afghanistan's districts. ISAF has built over 4,000 km of roads, when only 50 km existed in 2001. In 2001, 8 per cent. of Afghans had access to health care, whereas that figure is 80 per cent. today. The Taliban offer Afghanistan neither security nor development. That is why, in a recent BBC poll, the Taliban had the active support of just over 4 per cent. of the population of Afghanistan. It also explains why increasing numbers of former Taliban are choosing to oppose the Taliban and support the Afghan Government. Nowhere is that better exemplified than in Helmand, where the town of Musa Qala has been transformed from a battleground to a place where there are thriving markets and a popular school, and people live their normal lives.
	Afghan security forces are playing an increasing role in their own security. There are now more than 50,000 troops in the Afghan national army, and the first battalion to become independently operational is now fully trained and equipped. There are also more than 76,000 officers in the police force. In the light of those expanding Afghan forces, the Afghan Government have announced their intention to take over responsibility for security in Kabul by August this year. That will be a key step on the way to achieving our ambition to make Afghanistan a stable state with secure borders.
	Such security and stability are equally our ambition for Iraq.

Brian Jenkins: I listened with interest to the fact that the Afghan national forces are now coming into play and are looking to take over Kabul. Does my right hon. Friend have any indication of what the next step will be and can we see the light at the end of the tunnel? By what projected date can we expect those forces to be in control of the major part of Afghanistan?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend asks a perfectly sensible and appropriate question. I give the answer that I always give from the Dispatch Box when I am asked to give dates relating to future developments on security matters, particularly on handing over control, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan. The answer is that it will depend on conditions on the ground. An assessment by the ISAF commander and the Afghan Government came to the conclusion that their forces were reaching the stage where they could increasingly take over security in the city on an incremental basis. I am not aware that the process is taking place in any other part of Afghanistan, but it is not surprising that the capital city and surrounding area should be first, because that is where the concentration of forces and their training takes place. As we found in Iraq, we can reach a certain point in respect of the training of forces where this process accelerates. We started out with just one or two provinces in Iraq, but we can see today that many provinces have been handed over. That is exactly how we will do it in Afghanistan. My hon. Friend should keep asking the question, and I am sure that I will be progressively more able to answer it in a positive way than I am at the moment.
	Coming back to Iraq, I have made many visits and seen the work that our forces are doing to help the Iraqis make the objective of security and stability a reality. Since the end of March, our forces have been supporting Prime Minister al-Maliki's security surge in Basra. After some early challenges, those operations have yielded very considerable success. On Sunday, the Iraqi security forces concluded their sector-by-sector clearance of the city, as a result of which I can report to the House the current situation in Basra: the grip of the militias has been broken, with their leadership in flight or in hiding, and huge quantities of illegal weaponry have been recovered. There are now early but encouraging signs that life in Basra is returning to normal. The city is much more relaxed, with women feeling once more able to dress as they wish, and the university campus is vibrant.
	What we are seeing in Basra has not happened overnight. It is the product of years of hard work, principally by our armed forces and by the Iraqis. Through our training and mentoring, we brought the Iraqis to the point last December where they could take the lead in Basra, with the transition taking place later, when our forces could step back from the city. We have also worked hard to separate those willing to participate in the democratic process from the extremists. All that has exposed the true nature of the militias, which had previously used our presence in the city as a cover for their violent criminal activities.

Patrick Mercer: I am delighted to hear what the Secretary of State says about the recent upsurge in violence being more under control in Basra. Can he explain why an American Major-General and a brigade had to be deployed there to achieve that aim?

Des Browne: All the American resources in Basra came there for two principal reasons. First, on account of the decision of Prime Minister al-Maliki, Basra became the main effort for the Iraqi security forces. Consequently, senior members of its command came into the city. They worked with and were mentored by the American troops that came with them. Secondly, they also deployed American mentor troops, particularly from Anbar, to augment the 14th Division, which was trained and mentored by the United Kingdom. The Americans came with the Iraqis as they were deployed, so they brought additional resource—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance resource and other resource enablers—with them, to the advantage of the whole operation. That accounts for all the numbers. This was not an American deployment—

Andrew Murrison: So it was a training exercise?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman interrupts with a sedentary comment about whether that was a training exercise. He clearly does not understand what MiTTs— military transition teams—are. All the Iraqi troops, as they have been trained and developed, are mentored by the troops that operate with them. As they come forward, so do those who work with them, but in significantly lower numbers than the Iraqi troops themselves. They eat, sleep, fight and work with them, so it is not a training exercise, but a process of mentoring and ensuring that the Iraqi troops are able to continue to do what they have been trained to do. That entirely explains the position. The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who is a keen student of these matters, will have noted that my explanation is exactly the same as the one that General David Petraeus gave when he was asked the same question by our media on his recent visit here.
	I have outlined the reasons why the Iraqi security forces have enjoyed such strong public support, reflecting a widespread recognition that the men of violence are not fighting for the people of Basra—as they used to suggest—but against them.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Des Browne: I think that I have taken enough interventions. The point I am making is that the militia pretended that they were fighting for the people of Basra, but the people of Basra now know that they were fighting against them.
	However, such progress does not mean that we can simply declare success now and bring our troops home. Although real progress has clearly been made, it remains fragile, and needs to be consolidated and sustained. Lasting stability requires the Iraqis to make political and, above all, economic progress. The biggest single worry for the people of Basra is not security, but unemployment. Progress is being made: only the day before yesterday, a new market was opened in the Jameat area of Basra, built as a joint British-Iraqi venture, while last week I attended a reception for the Basra development commission at No. 10 Downing street, which brought together the captains of British industry, and they showed a great interest in investing in southern Iraq. We have been following up on that with some success, but all of this will take time to fix.
	This—successful—operation has shown that the Iraqis still have some way to go before they can operate without our assistance. They remain reliant upon us and our coalition partners for advice on how to plan and execute their operations, as well as for logistic and medical support and for specialist capabilities, such as fast jets, helicopters and surveillance. So our forces still have an extremely important job to do. In particular, our focus is on the following: completing the training of the 14th Division of the Iraqi army, which will provide the backbone for the long-term Iraqi security presence in Basra; taking forward the development of the Iraqi navy; and setting Basra's international airport on the path towards international accreditation. For the time being, the number of British forces in southern Iraq will remain broadly unchanged, while our military commanders continue to analyse the force levels we need to deliver these tasks in the changed and changing environment, but we will continue to reduce our force levels as conditions allow, and we will, of course, keep the House informed of our plans.
	We look to Iraq's future with growing optimism, but we also recognise the real challenges that remain. Iraq's neighbours have their part to play, alongside UK forces and our coalition partners, in helping Iraq move to a stable and prosperous future—and it is as much in their interests that that future be stable and prosperous as it is in the Iraqis' interests. Syria should continue to clamp down on the movement of foreign fighters, and Iran must stop arming those who threaten the democratically elected Government of Iraq and the coalition forces. We want to see all Iraq's neighbours, including Iran, playing a responsible role in the region.
	In Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq we are seeing slow but steady change towards states that are democratic and accountable, and that respect the rule of law and protect all their citizens, and change away from states that support terrorism or ethnic violence, or defy the legitimate will of the international community.
	Having focused on current operations, I should now turn to future threats. It is the prime responsibility of any Government to ensure, as far as possible, the safety and security of their people, and that responsibility is at the core of Government policy. We do not believe that any state with ballistic missiles currently has the intent to target them against the UK mainland, but we know that ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are proliferating among states of concern. The pace of that proliferation, as well as the intentions of the states developing those capabilities, is hard to gauge. However, we do know that intentions can quickly change, and we must be ready to respond to those changes.
	At Bucharest, NATO again clearly set out its position on ballistic missile defence:
	"Ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to Allies' forces, territory and populations. Missile defence forms part of a broader response to counter this threat."
	Therefore, this is not just a US-UK issue, or a US issue with a number of other allies. This is, and has long been, a NATO issue.
	From the public discussion paper we issued in December 2002, we have been very open about the assumptions and reasoning behind our policy on ballistic missile defence. As we have said many times before, the UK Government have no plans independently to acquire ballistic missile defence assets, nor do we have existing plans to host US ballistic missile interceptor sites in the UK. Nor are we engaged in any secret discussions with the US on these issues, as the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam would have us all believe. We already contribute to the US system, through the early warning radar information provided by RAF Fylingdales and by allowing the satellite data routed through RAF Menwith Hill to be used in the BMD system, and we also have close co-operative arrangements with it on technology programmes. When I announced to the House last July that the upgrade to the radar at RAF Fylingdales was complete, I noted:
	"There is no change to the existing UK-US mission for the radar and the station remains under full UK command."—[ Official Report, 21 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 71WS.]
	There have been accusations that the Government slipped out the announcement on RAF Menwith Hill just prior to the recess. That was not the case. After consulting with the Cabinet on a US request to use the satellite downlink at the station for BMD purposes, I replied to the US Defence Secretary on 17 July, and the announcement on 25 July was both timely and proper.
	We would be foolish not to keep a vigilant eye on the world and on changes in the strategic threat. If in the future we decide that the acquisition of such technology becomes essential to the security of the United Kingdom, we will re-examine the position. However, such a re-examination would not come from a desire to follow blindly the defence policy of any other nation, but from a recognition of our need to provide for our own national security against emerging threats. We cannot delay our planning and consideration of this issue until the strategic environment is such that a ballistic missile defence capability becomes a necessity. In terms of such highly complex systems, many years of development are required to produce something that is feasible and credible. If there is a need to take further steps on participation in missile defence, the Government will—as they have done consistently in the past—present those propositions to the House and have the necessary discussions, but we would only seek to do this when there are proposals or propositions to be made that go beyond the principles agreed with Parliament in 2003, and at present there are none.
	I hope that that—brief—contribution makes the Government position clear, and that now the Liberal Democrats and their leadership will, instead of constantly suggesting that they will have to drag us to the Dispatch Box to debate this matter, engage in the discussion and tell us what their party's position is in relation to this essential part of the security of this country and of our NATO allies, almost every one of which is signed up to exploring the potential of this form of defence.
	Finally, I must pay tribute to those who make the UK's defence policies a reality. As I speak, British forces are making a huge contribution to international security—a contribution of great cost to some, but of great benefit to many. The men and women of the British armed forces prove themselves on a daily basis to be of the highest calibre. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, British military personnel are demonstrating once again that they are world-class professionals. But their service is not without sacrifice. Families up and down the UK know only too well what an enormous cost those in the armed forces can—and do—pay. I owe them—and this House and the nation owe them—a huge debt of gratitude. We live in a safer place because of their brave and dedicated service. In recognition of the huge amount they do for us, it is absolutely right that we continue to assess and improve our support to them, both at home and on operations. The personnel Command Paper, the national recognition study and our review of many support policies are undertaken in exactly that light.
	I have no doubt the whole House will join me in thanking every member of the armed forces for their hard work in defending the UK and its interests. I commend their work to the House.

Liam Fox: Since the previous defence in the world debate, 95 British service members have made the ultimate sacrifice and have not come home from Iraq or Afghanistan. They died, as many of their predecessors did, making Britain safer and giving a better life to citizens of countries that enjoy far fewer benefits than us. This House should never forget that.
	I wish quickly to recognise an important day in our nation's history. Some 63 years ago today, Winston Churchill announced to the House that the sacrifices of millions had finally led to the end of hostilities in Europe, saying:
	"The German war, Mr. Speaker, is therefore at an end."—[ Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1868.]
	The declaration of Victory in Europe day brought to a close six years of total war in Europe. Of course, that in turn led to the bipolar cold war, the rise of NATO, the creation of what we know today as the European Union and, 63 years later, the interdependent, globalised world that we face today.
	Since the proclamation of VE day on 8 May 1945, the world's strategic environment has greatly changed. We now live in a truly global economy—a world where Britain's economic and security interests are so interlinked into a larger global interdependent network that we have an unavoidable shared set of interests with a multitude of actors in all parts of the globe. We also face the unavoidable importation of strategic risk. As recent events have shown, instability in one corner of the globe will quickly affect everyone. In the current instance, the root of the instability lies in the American credit market, but it could just as easily lie in an energy security crisis in Japan or China, or in some, as yet, undefined problem.
	That interdependence has major implications for how we think about and organise our national security structures. The luxury—although that is perhaps not how we saw it then—of the bipolar world of the cold war allowed us to set a clear direction for our national security. The unpredictability that we currently face forces us simultaneously to be both reactive and proactive, and to adapt to ever changing challenges.
	Conservatives welcome this debate, and I wish to raise a number of issues: the situation in Iraq, and Iran's involvement there; the threats that we continue to face in Afghanistan; energy security, the new scramble for the Arctic and the potential threats posed by a resurgent Russia; the need to deal with asymmetric threats; and the need to maintain the primacy of NATO and to ensure its political and military flexibility to deal with changing threats.
	Let me begin with the situation in Iraq, where there are grounds for optimism on a number of fronts. First, the American surge under General Petraeus seems to be delivering tangible improvements in security. Like the Secretary of State, I was fortunate enough last week to spend some time with both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, both of whom I found to be impressive and sincere. There is also cause for optimism now that Prime Minister al-Maliki has taken on the militias in Basra. There is a tendency in this country to see the whole conflict in Iraq through a religious prism of a Sunni-Shi'a conflict, but there is also a strong nationalist tradition in Iraq, and the willingness of its Government to tackle the often Iranian-supported militias seems to have had the effect, at least in part, of uniting the Kurds and Sunnis behind the Prime Minister and of convincing the population in the south that they have not been abandoned. The Prime Minister's campaign against the militias seems to have been genuine and sustained, even if perhaps it was, in parts, inadequately planned and required British and American support. Thankfully, it seems to have had some success, but in the future the Iraqi Government will need fully to involve coalition planners, and to do so in a more timely fashion.

David Kidney: I would like to raise one thing that was not on the hon. Gentleman's list. One legacy of the 63 years to which he referred has been our physical presence in Germany in large numbers. Does he support the reduction in those numbers and the evolving of our presence into wider co-operation with Europe and NATO?

Liam Fox: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I shall come to exactly that issue towards the end of my speech.
	Some 4,000 British troops remain in Iraq. Some of our forces are embedded in, fighting with and mentoring the Iraqi security forces, enabling them to take eventual control of their own security affairs. Those on the ground argue that British troops are playing an important role, and that this is no time to be talking about withdrawing them from Iraq. We should listen to those voices, but the Government need to explain continuously to the British public, with clarity, exactly how they see the role of British troops developing and how the overwatch operation will change over time. In particular, there needs to be an honest appraisal of the risks posed to our troops, directly and indirectly, from Iran.
	General Petraeus has been openly critical of Iran's involvement in Iraq, and two weeks ago, Admiral Mike Mullen, the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, blamed Iran for its
	"increasingly lethal and malign influence"
	in Iraq. He went on to say that recent operations in Basra had revealed
	"just how much and how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability".
	That is an important matter. The Secretary of State has all but said that Iranian involvement has led directly to the deaths of British troops in Iraq, but we need to hear more about what is being done by British forces and at the diplomatic level to counter the threat that Iran poses to Iraqi stability. The hard-won gains of emerging democratic authority, improving stability, and the sacrifices made by coalition troops and the Iraqi people cannot be allowed to be put in jeopardy by the actions of the Iranian regime.
	I would like to turn, as the Secretary of State did, to another part of the world that is a little closer to home. Many pages of European history have been written in the Balkans, which have always been vital to Europe's geo-strategic interests, and there has been no shortage of armed conflict over its territory over the centuries. The images of the wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan mean that it is easy wrongly to assume that peacekeeping in Kosovo will be a more straightforward affair. Let us make no mistake: regardless of how benign things may appear in Kosovo, our troops there will still be at risk. That is why we found it extremely regrettable that we were not given an oral statement on the deployment of our forces there last week. I am pleased that some of the questions that we subsequently asked were answered by the Secretary of State today, although some remain.
	In his written statement, the Secretary of State said that the troops would be deployed "until 30 June". In his letter to me, he said that this "initial deployment" would be "reviewed with NATO" at the end of June. Exactly what does that mean? What are the chances that British troops will be in Kosovo beyond the end of June? This Government have a track record of raising expectations that troops will return only to dash them later. The House would expect to be given some clarity about why it was termed an "initial deployment" and exactly what "reviewed with NATO" will mean. Perhaps the Minister for the Armed Forces will deal with that question directly in his speech.
	I was interested to hear that what happens in Kosovo will, again, be paid for entirely from the reserve, but that raises a basic issue that comes up again and again. Not only are we carrying the military burden through our troops, but our taxpayers are carrying the full burden, because there is no proper financial burden-sharing of what NATO does. As the Leader of the Opposition said recently, there needs to be far better financial burden-sharing in both NATO and the EU. Again, I hope that the Minister for the Armed Forces will answer some of those points.
	I understand that in addition to sourcing the requirement for the operational reserve force that is now being deployed to Kosovo, the 2nd Battalion, The Rifles was also serving as our spearhead land element. Which unit will take over while that one is in Kosovo? Do we have the capability to react to the unexpected? Let me paint a picture of the wider political situation facing us in Kosovo. Serbia is trying to include northern parts of Kosovo in its general election later this month; there are unconfirmed reports that Serbia is massing troops and munitions along its border with Kosovo; and there are media accounts of tension along sections of the Macedonia-Kosovo border. Our troops are going to face many risks in a volatile environment and very challenging circumstances. There is no doubt that, as always, they will perform superbly. If we made a commitment to NATO to provide the operational reserve force for the Balkans, we have an obligation to the alliance that we must fulfil, but the problem with this mission goes beyond the obvious question of overstretch and touches on questions of Government planning.
	As a country, we are more than fulfilling our obligations to the NATO alliance in Afghanistan, as one of my hon. Friends said in an intervention. Last year, once 10 December 2007 was established as the day that international mediators would submit their findings on the future of Kosovo to the United Nations Secretary-General, it became no secret that Kosovo would most likely declare independence sometime during the first quarter of 2008. Considering our high operational tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan and when our forces were so overstretched, why did the Government continue to make that commitment to the ORF during that time period in Kosovo? Did the Government try to persuade other countries to take on that responsibility at a time when the UK's armed forces were doing so much elsewhere? I hope that the Minister will deal with that point directly.
	Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's response to another question, we will keep a close eye on this issue and table parliamentary questions on any potential impact that operations in Kosovo will have on the airbridge to Afghanistan and Iraq. The concern is not without justification. New figures show how regularly our troops are delayed returning from Iraq or Afghanistan. Given that they have to report to the flight line many hours before a flight, it is a huge issue when 11 per cent. of all flights from Afghanistan are delayed by more than six hours, leaving our troops often on the floor or losing days of leave. That can have a significant impact on morale, as anyone who has spoken to our forces there will attest. It is simply not good enough.

Kevan Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if he were the Secretary of State for Defence he would not support the deployment in the Balkans at this time, or is he just sniping as usual at the Government to perpetuate the myth of overstretch?

Liam Fox: I doubt whether many of those serving think that overstretch is a myth. The hon. Gentleman might want to think again about using those particular words. I have made it clear that where we have obligations we have to fulfil them, but I question whether it was sensible for the Government not to try to see whether others might have been able to carry a little more of the load.
	We also need to look at the integration of the NATO and EU roles in Kosovo. Even though both aim to provide stability and security to Kosovo, NATO's KFOR military mission and the EU's rule of law civilian mission operate under two separate chains of command in Kosovo. As of last week, arrangements to facilitate co-ordination and mutual support between the two organisations were still under discussion. As we have learned from Afghanistan, where there are multiple military and civilian chains of command, it is vital that the security and reconstruction efforts are closely co-ordinated. In Kosovo, it will be no different. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to update the House on the status of the agreement between KFOR and EULEX and what efforts the Government have made to ensure that operations will not be undermined by failure to integrate fully.
	Future stability in the Balkans is in everyone's interest and we must do all that we can to ensure a favourable outcome. The one thing that the region clearly needs as it passes through this difficult stage is united international support and a strong international presence. The international community has invested enormous effort and good will to help the people of the region recover from the ravages of war, shake off the legacy of nationalism and join Euro-Atlantic structures. Thanks to that, Slovenia has become a fully fledged member of the EU and NATO and Croatia is on track to join the EU and was formally invited to join NATO at Bucharest, along with Albania—to name but a few of the achievements of recent years.
	Those hard-won successes are an example for the whole region. We cannot let Kosovo slip away. We understand that, the Americans understand that, NATO and the EU understand that, and Russia needs to understand that. The Balkans is one area where we have seen tensions with Russia, but there are others. Last summer, Russia announced its intention to annex a 460,000 sq m portion of ice-covered Arctic. Scientists claim that that area, on which Russia has audaciously set its sights, may contain 10 billion tonnes of gas and oil deposits. While that ridiculous claim has no legitimate legal basis, the west must take such threats from Russia seriously. With ice melting in the Arctic, and shipping passages and possible mineral exploitation becoming an increasing possibility, we may be witnessing a scramble for the resource-rich Arctic.
	It has been argued by some that as the EU and NATO push eastward towards the Caspian region, Russia is looking towards the north. A scramble for Arctic resources will bring a new dynamic to international security and how we address threats. In the UK, with our focus on Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, it would be easy to ignore. The complexity of the Arctic question makes it too easy to look the other way and hope that someone else deals with some of the problems. But are we as a nation, or NATO as our collective security alliance, ready to deal with any threat that may emerge over the Arctic?
	On a recent trip to Ottawa, I found that the issue of Arctic security is taken very seriously. Prime Minister Harper has stated that:
	"Canada's Government understands that the first principle of Arctic sovereignty is use it or lose it".
	Canada will open a new army training centre for cold-weather fighting at Resolute bay, and a deepwater port on the northern tip of Baffin island. Canada is also beefing up its military presence in the far north by adding 900 Rangers to the 4,000 already there. Last July, Prime Minister Harper announced that six to eight new navy patrol ships would be built to guard the north-west passage sea route in the Arctic.
	I am afraid that we have witnessed only the very beginning of the struggle for the Arctic, and it does not even appear to be on the radar here in the UK. Although there are several international institutions, such as the UN's Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, that are able to deal with these issues in a multilateral way, we need to be prepared for anything.
	The only icebreaker we have available is HMS Endurance. The United States is little better off with two active icebreakers in its coastguard. At the same time, Russia has a fleet of eight nuclear-powered icebreakers and has plans to build the world's largest icebreaker. Because of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, our helicopter pilots have had reduced training in Arctic conditions. In 2007, there were no Chinook or Apache helicopter training missions for Arctic conditions and only five Sea King, three Lynx, two Gazelle and three Puma helicopters received any sort of Arctic training at all.
	We need to set all that against political developments in Russia. Yesterday, Mr. Medvedev officially became Russia's Head of State, taking over from Mr. Putin, but a change of direction is unlikely. As Mr. Medvedev is the former chair of Gazprom's board of directors, it can be assumed that Russia's energy policy under its new president will stay consistent with that of Mr. Putin.
	If military might and nuclear weapons formed the core of Soviet cold war power, Russian elites view its energy resources as the basis of its power now. Russia is rivalling Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer and is estimated to have the world's largest natural gas supplies with 1,680 trillion cu ft—nearly twice the reserves of Iran, which has the next largest. Russia has demonstrated that it will use its energy resources to promote a broader foreign policy agenda. That was illustrated when Russia reduced gas supplies to Ukraine as part of a bilateral dispute and when it doubled the price of gas to Georgia in 2005.
	Russia's petrodollars are financing a $189 billion overhaul of its armed forces between now and 2015. They will purchase more than 1,000 new aircraft and helicopters, 4,000 new tanks and armoured vehicles and a new submarine fleet. New missiles will carry nuclear warheads. The great irony is that western addiction to oil and gas is funding Russia's military build-up.

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman is right about the security of energy supply, so does he agree that the time is now right to bring in the Falklands? We know that there is oil there, so will he support getting a rig out there to ensure our own security of supply?

Liam Fox: When I recently visited the Falklands, there was an active interest in that, although whether those in the Falklands regard it as our oil or their oil is an interesting question. Perhaps we could address it with the legislative council of the Falklands islands.
	The EU has an important role to play in the energy picture, especially in countering some of the difficulties posed by Russia. An end needs to be brought to the divide and rule that the Kremlin operates through single-nation sweetheart deals. The European Commission must act to remove protectionism and national monopolies, creating a genuine free market in energy.
	Better interconnections will reduce the risk of supplies being cut off for those who displease the Kremlin, but the EU will not be a sufficiently strong vehicle. NATO, as was decided at Riga, must play a key role in ensuring energy security for the west. Any decision on energy security that excludes Norway and Turkey, neither of which are in the EU, would be flawed. In order to face 21st-century threats, it has been argued that NATO's article 5 could be expanded to include energy security. We shall certainly have to consider that in the months and years ahead.

Paul Keetch: Under the terms of the agreement, the Falkland Islands, an overseas territory, does not possess its mineral rights—the UK still does. On the question of the Arctic, is it now Conservative policy that the Royal Navy should be equipped with a fleet of icebreakers? That seemed to be the line of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I can understand why that should be the case for Canada, which has thousands of miles of border with the Arctic, or for Russia, which has tens of thousands of miles of such a border, but is he suggesting that the UK armed forces should be somehow configured with a serious capability to fight Arctic warfare?

Liam Fox: Of course we are not considering that that should be in any way a unique UK capability. My question is whether new types of threats are emerging, whether NATO is looking collectively at how to deal with the problem and whether we should raise the issues further up the agenda for public discussion. When one sits in the Canadian Parliament or talks to Canadian Ministers—or to the Danes or Norwegians—it is striking that they have a different view of how global warming might affect economic and strategic issues in the future.
	NATO can play a key role in securing transport routes. Operation Active Endeavour, which has been patrolling the Mediterranean since 2001, is a good example of NATO co-operation on maritime security. Giving NATO a greater role in energy security would provide Turkey with added prestige and allow reformers a breathing space, given the short-sighted attitude taken to its EU membership by some of the EU's more prominent members.

Robert Key: May I clarify what my hon. Friend has just said, as it is absolutely crucial? I take it that he was referring to Greece. The mischief that Greece is carrying out in that part of south-east Europe is unsustainable. It is damaging relations between Turkey and the rest of Europe and between Turkey and NATO. It is damaging relations between Kosovo and Macedonia and Macedonia and Greece. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Greeks have to decide whether they are going to be serious players in NATO or whether they want to carry on their squabbling for their own interests rather than the wider interests of the organisation?

Liam Fox: All members of NATO have to decide what to put first: their national interests and historical grievances or the collective alliance. I heard my hon. Friend's point, but I was in fact referring to Germany and France.
	Let me turn finally to Afghanistan and NATO. The recent Bucharest summit was disappointing on many fronts. For example, nothing was done to source the operational reserve force for the international security assistance force in Afghanistan. That requirement of NATO's combined joint statement of requirements for Afghanistan has been unfilled since Romania last provided it in December 2006. It is inconceivable that 26 NATO members cannot find an extra battalion between them to provide an over-the-horizon reserve force for ISAF in Afghanistan. It illustrates a rather sad state of affairs.
	It was reported in  The New York Times last Saturday that the Pentagon is thinking about deploying 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan on top of the 3,200 Marines recently deployed to the south, because our NATO allies are not willing to provide the troops that the commanders on the ground need. That might or might not be correct—it was newspaper speculation—but the fact that it is being considered could lead to a dangerous shift in America's perception of NATO.
	We have more troops in Afghanistan now than at any other time. We are the second largest contributor of troops to ISAF after the US and sadly 95 of our brave servicemen and women did not make it back home to their families. That is a testament to the dedication and commitment of the British armed forces to bring stability and prosperity to the people of Afghanistan. Of course, it is about much more than that. As important as reconstruction and democratic development are, our forces are in Afghanistan primarily for our national security and to deny the forces determined to destroy our way of life a base from which to operate. It is for our security that those people have made their sacrifices, and we should perhaps be more explicit in saying so.
	Our troops fought bravely this winter, retaking Musa Qala and restoring order. We have about 6,000 troops based in Helmand province, which is geographically twice the size of Wales. Some 700 of those troops—a large portion—are tied up in Musa Qala, left behind to maintain the security. When the Minister winds up the debate, will he report on the progress of the reconstruction effort in Musa Qala? When does he expect that the Afghan security forces will be able to take over some or all of the security responsibilities there in order to free up British forces to pursue the Taliban further in other parts of Helmand province?
	The difficulties and shortages in Afghanistan are not limited to boots on the ground. We are still facing a shortage of tactical airlift in the form of helicopters. The Prime Minister, during his time as Chancellor, cut the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion in 2004 when we were already involved in two conflicts. In December, as the Secretary of State reminded us, the Prime Minister announced that NATO will start contracting civilian helicopters to reduce the burden on the military aircraft operating in Afghanistan. Although that move has sometimes been presented to us as some sort of panacea for the tactical airlift shortage in Afghanistan, the civilian contracted helicopters do not solve the main problem of freeing up helicopters for coalition use for combat operations.
	I appreciate and respect the civilians who are placing their lives at risk by supporting British and coalition troops on the front lines in Afghanistan, but as with all announcements from this Government we have to examine the small print. Under the terms of the contract, only 13,000 kg can be airlifted a day, in comparison with a CH-47 Chinook helicopter that can carry up to 23,000 kg on one trip. To put it simply, we are getting two thirds of one sortie from one Chinook helicopter a day with the NATO civilian contract. We now know that the contract is for an airlift service provided by a mix of helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft, but fixed-wing aircraft have different capabilities. They require secure runways for take-off and landing and many of the forward operating bases in southern Afghanistan lack such facilities.
	In addition, the terms of the contract do not allow troops to be carried in the civilian contracted aircraft. Helicopter airlift, in a country such as Afghanistan, is vital for conducting counter-insurgency operations. The problem is that if our troops need to be medivac'd or a quick reaction force needs to be sent behind enemy lines, not only are those civilian helicopters prohibited from conducting such missions, but they are failing to free up enough of our own helicopters to reduce the burden effectively.
	We need to do more, but we should never have found ourselves in a situation where we need to ask our troops to operate without all the necessary equipment. If we have failed to provide our forces with everything that they need, we have not failed as a nation to fulfil our obligations as a NATO member, which is more than we can say for a number of our European NATO allies. Many of the additional European troops who were offered at Bucharest, as well as many of the European troops who are already operating in Afghanistan, are restricted by phone books-worth of caveats, and that comes at a time when defence is high on the EU agenda.
	The EU has talked about a foreign and security policy, but it simply will not spend the money. Most countries in Europe spend well below the 2 per cent. of gross domestic product on defence that is supposedly the floor level. In Afghanistan, some of the major EU players are most clearly failing in their duties towards the NATO commitments. Understanding the potential of soft power is important, but soft power on its own is not enough. If we will the ends, we must will the means. Diplomacy without military support has little credibility. In a dangerous world, we cannot simply count on talking away any threat that we face.
	We remain a global military power, and power brings responsibility. Frameworks, institutions and agreements are all very well, but security does not come for free. Many EU politicians like to say that the role of the EU is in peacekeeping and nation building, but we can keep the peace only if we have the peace. If we want freedom, we must be willing to defend it, to fight for it, if necessary to die for it and, definitely, to fund it. In Afghanistan, we need a commitment to fight to the last, but unfortunately, at present in the south of Afghanistan, that would be the last Briton, the last American and the last Canadian— [ Interruption ] —and a few notable others. That cannot be sustained in the long run. There must be better burden sharing in the south of Afghanistan, because the load in fighting cannot fall on as few nations as it does at present in an alliance that wants to have a sustainable long-term future.
	When Secretary Gates talks about the emergence of a two-tier NATO, it is a warning about the survivability of the alliance. For EU politicians then to talk about a European pillar of NATO compounds the problem. With European security and defence policy, we see no extra funds on top of those set aside for NATO responsibilities; rather we see the double-hatting of forces that are clearly masquerading as new capacity. We see duplication and possibly competing military structures on top of an already underfunded commitment to the primary defence alliance. That is a potentially toxic mix for NATO in the long run.

David Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman exonerate Denmark and the Netherlands from what he has just said about presence in the south of Afghanistan? Will he say which nations he is talking about? Is he talking about France and Germany, or Greece?

Liam Fox: It is clear that the Netherlands and Denmark have been operating honourably in the south of the country, but they are primarily supporting the forces of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Most people would recognise that we provide the vast bulk of the fighting troops in the south of Afghanistan. The majority of people in this country well understand that, while we are giving a commitment, along with those major allies, to fighting in the south of the country, too many other NATO partners are unwilling to see their forces engaged in the south. That is not a good thing for the long-term health of the alliance. If we have collective security, we must collectively accept the areas of high risk. It is not acceptable for everyone on the street to have the same insurance policy, while only some of them pay the insurance premium.
	All the areas that I have outlined come at a time of increased tension and danger. We face the threats of nuclear proliferation, with Iran testing the patience of the international community. We face a resurgent and self-confident Russia, and we face the deadly threat of Islamist extremism, with forces opposed to our system of government, our beliefs and our values. They oppose us not for what we do, but for who we are. We cannot avoid the confrontation, for they have chosen to confront us.
	Today we are remembering the end of the second world war in Europe 63 years ago and the sacrifices made then for our security. We showed resolve not only then but again in the cold war against the communist threat. We need to face our present challenges with the same courage and determination that previous generations showed, and we as a nation cannot be found wanting.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is important that we are talking about defence in the world, and I should like to start by paying a tribute to Royal Marine Jonathan Holland, who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan and who is buried in a Chorley churchyard. That brings home what our troops are doing out in Iraq and Afghanistan. One cannot forget all those people—generally they are young people—who have made the ultimate sacrifice and, of course, those who have been injured and severely injured. We talk about the commitment of our armed forces, and without doubt we are second to none in the world in the commitment that we ask of, and receive from, our armed forces. They never say no; they always say yes. We must respect that.
	This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Territorial Army, and it plays a role in back-filling our forces. Whether in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq, the TA footprint is there and we must not forget that in its centenary year. I say to the Government that the TA has played an excellent role in the past. It continues to play that role and it must be allowed to continue to play it in the future. We cannot manage and play our role in the defence of the world without the TA. It is only right that we look to increase its budget and not cut it. It does so much at so little cost that we should not ask it to take cuts at this time.
	The Navy, the Royal Marines, the British Army and the Royal Air Force have all been deployed and play their role. We expect them to continue to do that.
	Lancashire is famous for recruitment and its regiments. The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment is a new regiment that is made of three great regiments: the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, the King's Own Royal Border Regiment and the King's Regiment. We should not forget the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, and one person in particular. Colonel Mendonca almost became a scapegoat for the higher ranks in the military and we should not forget what a brave man he was. I am sorry that the Army lost such a young leader. It was tragic that he was forced out, but we must not forget what he did for us and we must not forget his regiment, which is now part of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. I pay tribute to Colonel Mendonca.
	I have already referred to the role of the TA, and Chorley's own TA squadron has just been part of 52 Brigade under the command of 5 General Support Medical Regiment. Colonel Roger McBroom took 5GS to Afghanistan, and what a role it played in providing medical services and returning people to this country. It is only right that we also talk about the hospital at Selly Oak and the role that it plays.
	Medical services have been based at Preston, and men returning from Afghanistan receive their medicals at Fulwood barracks, as will the men from the Chorley TA squadron. When the squadron went out to Afghanistan, it was commanded by Major Nick Medway, and we must pay tribute to him for becoming a lieutenant colonel. The TA and the regulars worked well together and it is important that we recognise their important role.
	A reception was held on the Terrace only a week ago for 52 Brigade and others who had returned from Afghanistan, and I thank the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) for organising it. It was good to see that our soldiers were being given recognition in the House.
	Recognising the role of our soldiers means that they should be able to march through our towns. We want the people of this country to recognise what our soldiers have done, so it is important that they have the right to exercise the freedom of the town and can march with banners and standards flying and drums beating.

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend raises the important point of recognising the role that our troops play. When they return home, they should be recognised, but there should be consistency. Everyone returning home, and not just the privileged few, should receive the recognition that their role deserves.

Lindsay Hoyle: I agree. We need equality for members of our armed forces. They all risk their lives and should get equal recognition. It is important that we recognise what they are doing and that we take the public with us, because they have to recognise what our armed forces are doing on our behalf.
	I am pleased that the Government have committed £24 million to Headley Court. It is important that there is not just talk, but actual commitment. We are now seeing that, and long may it continue, because we need the right facilities, not just for the people who come back, but for those who have been injured.
	Our armed forces must wonder about compensation. We have done a lot and put compensation in place, but we must also look at what is awarded in the private sector. We should treat our troops in the same way as an insurance company that pays out for someone who is injured in a car crash or whatever. We should be aiming for that recognition and endeavour. That is the standard of compensation that we should be seeking for our brave troops.
	What also goes with our troops is accommodation. I know that the Minister of State has said that he is not satisfied with their accommodation and that he is committed to changing that. When troops come back, they expect the best, and that is the only thing that is good enough for them. We should seek nothing less.

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument. Let me put to him a circumstance that arose recently. A civilian Iraqi was horribly injured in the spine and got £1 million compensation. I am not denying that that individual deserved that amount, but many soldiers in the UK are looking over their shoulders and seeing that payout, when the maximum payout for any injured personnel in the British Army is around £200,000. That seems wrong.

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not disagree; in fact, that is my point. It was this Government who introduced the compensation scheme. I am saying that we have to lift the bar. More money should be available. However, at least we took the decision to ensure that compensation is available. I do not want to take money away from someone, but we must try to lift the amount that is available.

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend should not assist in perpetuating the myth that we are comparing like with like. We surely cannot treat our injured service personnel by giving them a one-off payment, no matter how large, and then say, "That's it." The payments have to be made for the rest of their lives. They are young and potentially vulnerable people. We cannot simply give them an up-front payment as is awarded by the courts. We give them an up-front payment at the moment, but we supplement it with an ongoing guaranteed payment for the rest of their lives.

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not disagree; in fact, my right hon. Friend may well be aware that there has been a change in circumstance in the insurance company sector. Not all the money is paid up front; it is paid in stages and put into trust funds. The Government were right to introduce the compensation scheme, but it does not stop us ensuring that more money is available in the future.
	Instead of saying to someone, "You're no longer fit for purpose", we now also rightly say, "If you want to stay in the service, we're going to help keep you in employment." That in itself is a major change. It is fantastic that someone who lost a limb has gone back to Afghanistan because he wanted to be out there with his troops. We are giving our service personnel that ability. The Government should be congratulated on that. I am not attacking them—far from it—but we should lift the bar to see what more we can do. We started something that needed to be put in place, but that does not stop us renewing the scheme and looking at it again as time goes by. The people who serve are important. We have been lucky that our troops want to be part of the fighting team. We cannot forget that they are a band of brothers.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister is correct to ensure that we lift the standard of accommodation. We must invest heavily, and sooner rather than later. When the troops come home, good accommodation and a longer period of rest are important before they redeploy. Overstretch is an issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) may not say that there is overstretch, but I would go as far as saying that there is because we have big commitments. We must ensure that there is a period of respite between redeployment and retraining. Our troops must be satisfied with that. Otherwise, they will walk away, and we cannot afford to let that happen. We have invested heavily in those troops, so we must look after them when they need it.
	Of course, part of that back-up comes from others, such as the Gurkhas. It is only right that we ensure that the Gurkhas' standard of living is looked after. The same point applies to the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, who have played a key role in back-filling and have won some of the highest honours awarded in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a crying shame that they are not on the same wages as the British Army back in Gibraltar. The issue has been investigated and reports have come out, but the pay levels have not been matched. They are willing to risk their lives in winning those honours, so we should look again at this issue. It is important that we thank the Gibraltar Regiment and the Gurkhas for what they do.
	We in this House rightly talk about equipment. On helicopters, we have done the best that we can, but they do not appear overnight; we must work harder and ensure that that air support is in place. It is absolutely critical that we have more helicopters.

Kevan Jones: Would it not also help if the Chinooks, which the last Tory Government procured, could actually fly?

Lindsay Hoyle: Of course it would. What can we say about mothballed Chinooks that were meant for our special services, and which have never been used? That is totally unacceptable. That was a complete waste of money; I cannot get away from that, and nor can anybody—on either side of this House. It was a tragic mistake, but it has happened and we cannot turn the clock back.

Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have raised this issue with the Prime Minister. Would it not be a fitting tribute to our special forces if those helicopters, which were ordered by John Major and paid for by Tony Blair, were brought into service by the current Prime Minister—or at least if equivalent helicopters were provided?

Lindsay Hoyle: My understanding is that we are investing a lot of money in trying to get those aircraft into service, and we can all agree that the sooner that happens, the better. That might remove some of the embarrassment from the Opposition.
	We must also consider uniforms and their quality. This Government made a tragic mistake with the cut-and-sew contract, which was given to a company in Northern Ireland that was never going to produce the uniforms. The work was sent to China, done in a sweatshop and sent back for our troops. That is totally unacceptable.  [ Interruption. ] One of my hon. Friends says from a sedentary position, "We have heard this before". He may have, but he may not be aware that the cut-and-sew contract is coming up for renewal. I hope that we are brave enough to allow an open tender, rather than making a cosy arrangement in an office somewhere in the Ministry of Defence that allows China to keep that contract. I hope that we will open up this process and allow British companies to tender for the contract, and put the jobs back in Lancashire. So there is a challenge for my friends here. I look forward to the Pincroft bleaching and dyeing company winning that contract once again.
	It is a question of commitments. There is none better than the Type 45 destroyer. HMS Daring has been doing its tests; it is an absolute leader in its class and we can be proud of it. We are heavily investing in that class of destroyer, and long may it continue; we thank it for what it has done. We have the destroyers, and we must look forward to the two aircraft carriers, which are crucial in defence terms. We look forward to an announcement on them sooner, rather than later, and to a commitment regarding what will be operating off that platform. We talk all the time about and hear a lot about the joint strike fighter. I hope that that contract is there, that the intellectual transfer will take place and that we can get the benefit of those jobs in the north-west. I hope, too, that we will not just be providing parts but doing the final assembly, and that we can maintain those aircraft on those two valuable carriers.

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend may be aware that there are already threats of job losses on the Clyde if those aircraft carrier orders are not placed. It would certainly be helpful if we could have a clear statement from the Minister today on the situation with those carriers.

Lindsay Hoyle: I cannot disagree. We need that news tonight.

Julian Lewis: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's excellent speech, but a recent written answer gave some interesting information from the Minister for the Armed Forces. I had asked how long it would take to construct each of the carriers and was told five and a half years. If the first is to come into service in 2014—and given that one must allow a year for sea trials and then another year for acceptance and working up in the Royal Navy—it is getting perilously near the deadline; in fact, we might even expect the announcement today or next week if the deadline is to be met.

Lindsay Hoyle: I cannot disagree and I hope that the winding-up speech will contain a good announcement for us—something positive for us to take back to our constituencies. We need that. I am not sure that we are ready for the building of ice-breakers yet. I am more bothered about the carriers, which will be more relevant to our defence needs.
	The platforms are crucial and I look forward to the joint strike aircraft operating from these carriers. On heavy lift capability, the workhorse is coming to the end of its life. We have to replace the C130Js at some point, and they have done an excellent job. We look forward to the A400M, but it seems to have gone rather quiet. The aircraft will be capable of operating on short runways and rough airstrips and will have a heavier lift capability than anything we have, apart from the Galaxies. We know that that aircraft is needed quickly. Where are we up to with that, as it will play an important role?

Gerald Howarth: I have just had my invitation to the roll-out of the A400M on 26 June. I hope the hon. Gentleman will get his. If not, let me know and I will seek to get him one.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is a kind offer, but I am sure that we will all get an invitation. The A400M is an important aircraft and will be our aircraft for the future. We talk about the air tanker programme and we need a statement on that now. It is also important that procurement supports British jobs.
	Our troops are the best in the world and we must look after them. In years gone by, Labour had a reputation for not having an interest in defence. As I look around the Chamber today, I can see that that has changed. Defence matters to the Government and to Labour Members. I am pleased to say that there are parties on both sides of the House that take an interest. I notice that there is a gap towards the back on the right of the Chamber—as I look across—which is a tragic shame. All parties should be here for this very important debate.
	World defence is about world security and nothing is more important than homeland security. What role could our armed forces play in the establishment of a border security force? Such a force needs to be established and it should be a joint force between the police and our armed forces. We know the important role that our armed forces have played around the world . It does not seem so long ago that the far east land forces were operating on the Hong Kong-China border. We ought to use that knowledge in setting up a homeland security force to make this country safer and to protect the people we represent.
	I thank the Government for what they have done so far.

Nick Harvey: I welcome this debate, and I shall start, as others have, by paying tribute to the work of our armed forces, to the servicemen and women and the civilians who are currently on operations around the world, to those who have been injured and to those who lost their lives serving their country. Many of us from all parts of the House attended the city salute last night. We saw many of those who have served coming home, including the injured and their families. It was both humbling and uplifting to witness that spectacle, and we thank everyone for the service that they have put in for their country in different parts of the world.
	Since we last debated defence in the world, we have seen some progress, but we also continue to face many of the same old realities. Iraq remains at the centre of our attention, despite hopes that, by now, we might have been well on the way towards a process of withdrawal. Afghanistan still looks like an intractable conflict in which progress is understandably slow and the battle for hearts and minds is almost as tough as the fighting. We are also going to contribute forces to Kosovo, an area that richly deserves our support but which also risks stretching our forces even more.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Will he clarify whether it is Liberal Democrat policy to withdraw our troops from Iraq?

Nick Harvey: It has never been the policy of our party that we should withdraw them overnight, but it remains our view that they should be withdrawn as fast as is safely possible, commensurate with our commitments to others. I will say more about that in a few minutes.
	Over the past year, increasing concern has been voiced in various quarters about the state of our defence and about the capabilities available to our armed forces in our national defence. The concerns come not only from the Floor of the House, where they might be expected, but from senior defence officials, defence chiefs, coroners, analysts and service personnel. Neither British parliamentarians nor the British public can expect to have a huge say in what happens in some of these international arenas, most notably in Iraq, but we would expect the British Government to have a tight grip on what is happening. In that sense, it is notable that, during the course of the Conservative party conference last autumn, the Government told us that there would be a draw-down in troop numbers in the region, and that we would reach a basic state of overwatch. However, we have yet to see any significant progress towards such a phased withdrawal. We have to ask why the Prime Minister seemed to be in such a rush to announce those troop withdrawals last autumn if, as the Government now say, the situation in southern Iraq was always so unpredictable.

Tobias Ellwood: Further to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has just asked, would the hon. Gentleman, as things stand today, keep the troop numbers as they are, increase them or reduce them?

Nick Harvey: I have made it perfectly clear that, as things stand today, we would not start to withdraw the troops overnight. Since we first articulated the need for Britain to commence a process of withdrawal 18 months ago, we have said that the process would take about six months to perform safely and that, in any case, before we commenced such a process, we would go through negotiations with the Iraqi authorities and with our allies, principally the Americans. Nothing has really changed in the way we view that, and my colleagues and I still believe that it should be our objective to commence a process of withdrawal and to get the troops out of Iraq as fast as can safely be considered. I stress, however, that no one has ever suggested that that could take place overnight.
	Last autumn, we were considering the spectre of the election that never was. Others might point the finger at us and say that we used the situation as a political football—I deny that—but the fact is that the Government were doing that. I cannot see that there is any certainty about even a clear end goal for our hard-pressed resources, let alone any exit strategy. The Government continue to listen very closely to our US allies, but I do not think that being there for our allies is, in the long term, a justification for continuing the critical overstretch suffered by our troops or for undermining the other operations in which we are engaged.
	It was said that we had trained Iraqi forces successfully, but we have delayed our drawdown and continue to be on so-called overwatch duties. As we know, Sunni elements recently surged forward, but in the middle east debate of 1 May the Minister for the Middle East said:
	"In Iraq, we have seen significant progress...New democratic political structures are beginning to bear fruit. Local communities have turned against al-Qaeda...The Iraqi Government have taken tough action against armed groups and militias, regardless of their sect, and Iraqi security forces are delivering on their responsibilities.
	In Basra...since handing over security responsibility...in December...we have seen strong evidence of the increasing capabilities of the Iraqi armed forces".—[ Official Report, 1 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 458.]
	We had more of that from the Secretary of State today and it was very welcome, but I and other hon. Members are concerned that there has been a significant change in British troops' overwatch activities. Before the end of last year, we were primarily responsible for security in Basra, whereas we are now there in a support role.
	I was worried by a newspaper report that a British brigadier had been ejected from meetings between the Iraqi Prime Minister and the Americans, and it is a matter of concern—to this House and to the general public—that we are asking our armed forces to put their lives at risk yet have less and less influence or say over their commitments and activities. When an oral statement was made to the House, various hon. Members shared my disquiet that we were continuing to put our troops at great risk yet had less say over it.
	We expected a drawdown of about 1,500 troops, but that has been delayed to help with the current situation. The definition of "overwatch" seems to have broadened considerably from what I at least expected at the outset. Given that what the Government told us last autumn clearly no longer obtains, I hope that Ministers will say what they think our future commitment will be. It is clear that all the hopes and expectations fuelled by the Prime Minister's announcements of last autumn are now a long way from the Government's thinking. The public, the armed forces and this House need a much clearer statement of what the Government think our involvement will comprise, both in the foreseeable future and—as it appears will be the case—for many years to come.
	In Afghanistan, the battle seems to be going round in a circle. In saying that, I do not intend to criticise our armed forces or Government in any way, but the coalition as a whole seems to lack a clear and overarching strategy. As a matter of fact, from the British point of view there is every indication that the three Departments involved are working together rather better than they did in the past, but the coalition as a whole needs to face up to the lack of an overarching strategy.
	I very much regret that Lord Ashdown was unable to take up the special envoy role, but let us hope that the gentleman who has stepped into the role is able to help the Afghan authorities and the coalition as a whole to develop a strategy. The danger is that we could be in a Catch-22 situation. People who have served in Afghanistan tell me that the conflict is in a vicious circle that will be very hard to break: our military objective is to stabilise the country so that reconstruction can take place, but the fact that it is not yet safe enough for that reconstruction is making it more difficult to stabilise the country. I accept that there are no easy solutions. We can win some hearts by erecting bridges and building schools, but minds can be hard to win in a part of the world that has had a very rough 30 years or so. Only if we can get on top of the situation militarily, and stay on top of it, will minds be won over in addition to hearts.
	There is no doubt that this is going to be a very long haul. I am, understandably, being pressed by both other parties about the Liberal Democrats not supporting a long haul in Iraq, but let me make it perfectly clear that we absolutely support the long haul in Afghanistan. We have no choice in the matter, as other Members have said. We went in there for the right reason, which was to prevent the country from being a safe haven for international terrorism, and we have no choice but to see it through and ensure that it does not become so again. It will not be possible for our troops to leave Afghanistan until they can do so absolutely confident that the country has been reconstructed to such an extent that there is no danger of the Taliban re-emerging as the authority and allowing al-Qaeda back.
	I echo the words of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and others—we will not win that battle unless other allies start pulling more weight and other NATO and European countries commit more troops with fewer caveats on their operations and send them into some of the toughest areas where we are most in need of additional feet on the ground. There is no doubt that the shortfalls in troop provision by NATO allies are making this considerably more difficult and much slower, and I fear that the visibly long-term nature of the conflict will begin to erode some of the public support for it in this country. I very much hope not. It is in the interests of everybody in this House to work together to ensure that that is not the case.
	We have to start to ask fairly fundamental questions about how our armed forces are configured and about some of the procurement decisions that follow from that. It can still be said that too much of our capability is geared towards state-on-state conflict rather than the ground-level insurgency that is the generation of warfare that we are involved in for the future, although that is not to say that we should ignore or close our minds to the dangers of state-on-state conflict in the medium to long term. It was certainly a premise of the 1988 strategic defence review that we did not face an imminent threat in terms of state-on-state warfare, and that probably remains as true today as it was then. In a fast-changing world, we must take it seriously in the medium to long term, but our armed forces do not seem to be adequately configured for the warfare that we know we will be engaged in for the short to medium term.
	Again, there are no easy solutions—no levers that one could quickly flick to change things. However, as I and others have said in the House before, there is now an overwhelming need for another strategic defence review, because the world has changed a great deal in the years since the previous one was carried out. Other countries, notably America, do this far more frequently than we do, and it is overdue. We cannot maintain operations at the current tempo without inflicting real and lasting damage on our capabilities. It cannot be emphasised enough that we need more helicopters. We also need more infantry on the ground and a greater ability to match the tactics of those who are not fighting us in planes or big tanks.

Jim Sheridan: While we are on the subject of helicopters, does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with the general public's perception, rightly or wrongly, that helicopters should be used to their full capacity and should not be used by privileged service personnel to visit their girlfriends?

Nick Harvey: I think that there will have been raised eyebrows among the public with regard to certain uses of helicopters recently, but the overwhelming consideration that we all need to face is that more helicopter capacity is urgently needed on the front line, and the Government have to wrestle with some tough decisions to ensure that that need is met.
	I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) acknowledging that there is overstretch rather than simply stretch. The fact that defence planning assumptions have been breached year after year is, in itself, evidence of overstretch. Since the 1998 strategic defence review, one has seen a growing gap between our commitments and our capabilities, both long and short term. The armed forces cannot keep doing more than they have the capability to do—that was the central recommendation of the strategic defence review, and increasingly, in practice, it is being ignored. We have been warned by General Dannatt that our forces are "running hot" and our reserves are not excluded from that strain. Personnel were meant to be at the very core of the 1998 strategic defence review, but a great deal of press attention and prominent military voices highlight the fact that we are still waiting for more improvement to housing, compensation, the way in which inquests are handled, the provision of care and the duty of care. We have even seen coroners weighing into the debate and talking about the failure to provide troops with the protection that they need. We recognise that the Government are taking steps to rectify that, but there is still some way to go to provide what is needed. We look forward to the Government's introduction of their Command Paper on troop welfare. It was due in the spring. May is still the spring, but June will be summer, so I hope that we will see the paper soon.

James Arbuthnot: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Defence promised the Defence Committee in May last year that the defence planning assumptions would be reviewed by spring this year? We are still waiting to see that review, and it is important that we should see it.

Nick Harvey: It is important that we should see it, as should the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman chairs. I look forward to seeing it myself. "Spring" has always been quite an elastic term in governmental circles, but it is getting almost as stretched as the armed forces themselves. I hope that all the papers will be at the disposal of the Select Committee for its consideration.

Bob Russell: It is climate change—it is all one big season now.

Nick Harvey: Yes, it might indeed be climate change.
	Both recruitment and retention remain essential to our efforts to sustain adequate numbers of boots on the ground, but intake has fallen and outflow has increased. Commonwealth nationals are increasingly being relied upon to fill the gap where British forces are leaving. It is clear that there must be further efforts and incentives to put that right. It is notable that many of our allies are succeeding in increasing their troop numbers while the British are struggling to stand their current ground. Iraq and Afghanistan have been costly ventures financially, and although about £10 billion has come out of the urgent operational requirements the Ministry clearly faces a budgetary crisis. It is fair to argue that the marginal costs of those operations are met by urgent operational requirements, but it is not true, as Government spokesmen try to imply, that the total costs are met through the UORs because they are not.
	The strain, in human terms and in terms of the life expectancy of some of our equipment, is not to be underestimated. It cannot be denied that a financial situation that was already bad is being made considerably worse. The Government are keen to point out that we have one of the largest defence budgets, pro rata, in the world, but that it is not the whole picture. We know that defence inflation vastly outstrips general inflation and although the Government can quite fairly point to the fact that there are real-terms increases over the next three years, as measured according to the retail prices index, that does not necessarily translate into real terms in the defence sector. The Government face financial difficulty across the board, and no more money will be available during the period that we are considering. Again, that underlines the need to ask some fundamental questions about how to balance our commitments with the resources.

Bob Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Harvey: I will give way to the Minister. I predict that he will say, as he has previously, that neither we nor the Conservatives have said that we would commit more resources. I readily acknowledge that, but my point is that we know that the available resources are finite, and no party is advocating increasing them, so hard decisions must be made about prioritising and the best use of the resources.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman, unsurprisingly, predicts well. However, why does he raise the issue in that way? Does he suggest that there should be some other sort of inflator for the defence budget over and above the consistent increases in the past 10 years? Would his party or any other commit itself to some other inflator that would lift the defence budget at a faster and higher rate? We are entitled to ask that if he says that the resources are not enough and something must be done.

Nick Harvey: The Minister makes an interesting suggestion. I do not have such an inflator at my fingertips, but if he believes that such a thing could be considered, it would be good for the House to debate it.
	The Ministry of Defence is in financial crisis—that is widely understood and commented on. It serves to underline the mismatch between what we are trying to achieve and the available resources. I have already come under fire for my party's belief that our operations in Iraq should be brought gradually to an end. That cannot be done overnight, but getting one of the major deployments in which we are involved off the balance sheet will help. We do not have the right balance between the configuration of our troops and the procurement decisions to back up those troops. I believe that the solution is another fundamental strategic defence review.
	If the country, under any political scenario that we can envisage, will not have more resources to commit to defence than we currently have, we must make decisions that get us back into balance. It is not my imagination, that of the Tories or that of the media that the armed forces are overstretched or that the Ministry of Defence is in financial crisis. Anybody who is alert to what is going on can see that both assertions are true. There is therefore a need for a fundamental review and some tough decisions.
	The Minister asked whether there was some other inflator. Defence expenditure was 2.4 per cent. of GDP in the last financial year. It has been on a steady downward trend from a high in 1984-85, when the figure was 5.2 per cent. Real-terms increases can be expressed in simple cash terms but, as a proportion of GDP, and in terms of the spending power of the money in the defence budget, expenditure has clearly decreased.
	We are waiting for some big procurement decisions. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chorley had an incredible shopping list of items that he awaits with great optimism. If he had written such a list to Santa as a child, he would have been horribly disappointed. However, we are waiting for some crucial decisions. I do not envy Ministers the agonies that they have undergone in recent months when considering what to do, but we fear that more and more projects will be pushed to one side and that there will be salami chopping to make the finances balance. That is not a strategic or sensible way in which to run our nation's defence.

Lindsay Hoyle: Which part of the shopping list would the hon. Gentleman prioritise and which part does he not support?

Bob Russell: Icebreakers.

Nick Harvey: It is fair to say that icebreakers would not be at the top of our shopping list.
	We are all keen that the big items should go ahead, but we await some of the decisions with concern. The Navy is understandably keen to receive the go-ahead for aircraft carriers, while the Army is concerned about FRES and will have drawn some encouragement from today's announcement. There have been press reports that the future Lynx project might be axed. I desperately hope that it will not be, because if by chance that happened, the defence industrial strategy would be more or less dead. Finmeccanica and others around the world would draw the lesson that the strategy was dead and that the MOD was not a partner that anybody would want to link up with.
	The Government undoubtedly have some difficult decisions to make. We await the announcements with interest and concern. I hope that we can improve our procurement processes, which have not necessarily been admirable over the decades. For the procurements in question, fundamentally changing how things are done is not feasible at this stage.
	In the longer term, however, we have to ask what we want our armed forces to be and how we want to equip them. Are we really trying to develop a miniature version of the American military? Is the UK really trying to retain, for an indefinite period, a comprehensive ability in our own name? Alternatively, how will we build our capabilities in conjunction with our allies? Increasing co-operation with NATO allies, the USA and other member states in Europe must be a serious consideration. The issue is not about handing control to our allies or relinquishing sovereignty, but about trying to maximise resources, especially when we undertake most of our operations as part of an international force.
	We need to consider when and how we want to get involved around the world, in a more foreign policy-led approach that allows for rapid, easy and effective expeditionary capabilities, coupled with certain key components for hard power expressions. Our current capabilities are very much geared towards hard power. Our armed forces need to be prepared for the operations that we think they are most likely to face in the years to come.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. If he believes that our forces are too configured towards continental defence, is he suggesting that we retreat from that posture, increase our expeditionary forces and reconfigure for more such operations? If so, what criteria would he use for that increased deployment?

Nick Harvey: I have been suggesting that we undertake a strategic defence review, which I believe the hon. Gentleman also supports. It would seem pointless to call for a fundamental review, only to pre-empt the conclusions that it might reach. My feeling is that our ability to conduct state-on-state warfare is a combination of the cold war legacy and a preoccupation with the idea that that is the only sort of warfare in which we will be involved in future.
	To pick up the hon. Gentleman's point about expeditionary warfare, I believe that we will need to increase our capabilities in expeditionary warfare even further than they have already been developed. A strategic defence review would have to sort through how best to combine our resources with those of our allies in such a way that we do not undermine our ability, in our strategic alliances, to fight the more conventional battles that we have fought in the past. We do not face those battles imminently, but I share his view that we cannot disregard them further into the future.

Julian Lewis: Given that we are engaged in not one but two major counter-insurgency campaigns, there is no danger of our doubting that we will have to be prepared for things other than state-on-state warfare. However, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, because pretty much all the post-second world war examples of state-on-state warfare broke out entirely unpredictably, to talk about reconfiguring our forces to have a much reduced capacity to deal with such warfare is rather dangerous?

Nick Harvey: I have not called for those forces to be much reduced; I have called for more co-operation with the allies that we believe we will be engaged with. That needs to be a greater part of our thinking in respect of expeditionary warfare capabilities and, indeed, in terms of sustaining for the longer term the sort of defences that we would need if we found ourselves once again involved in state-on-state warfare.
	Before I finish, I want to ask the Government what preparations they are undertaking in advance of the non-nuclear proliferation treaty review conference in 2010. Britain played a very constructive and laudable part in the success of the 2000 NPT review conference, and Robin Cook in particular deserved a great deal of credit for that. In my view and that of my colleagues, last year's decision to keep Britain in the nuclear club well beyond Hiroshima's centenary in 2045 was premature. Given that the Government have taken that decision, however, I would hope that they want to balance the message that that sent out with evidence of a clear commitment to non-proliferation. Indeed, I very much hope that at the 2010 conference the British Government will provide the leadership that they provided at the 2000 conference. I believe Britain has an opportunity to lead disarmament and reassert some authority that may have been lost through our involvement in Iraq. We need to try to gain some of that ground and push for obligations to be met, as well as meeting our own commitments to international disarmament.
	In conclusion, we need defence for this generation. Our current capabilities still reflect past conflicts to some extent and we are not necessarily prepared to respond to future challenges. We need, as I have said, a new strategic defence review that really puts emphasis on foreign policy-led defence posture and that concentrates far more fully on how we can co-operate with our allies in NATO, in the United States and within Europe.
	Traditional defence planning is now out of date. We need a force that is flexible and able to endure the various challenges that it might be faced with. That will involve difficult decisions. Whether we increase spending to match our operations in the short term or whether we reconfigure and realign the armed forces to meet the budget that is available, the decisions are tricky. It is no great surprise that the Government have taken some time to take some of the difficult procurement decisions, but there is, in my view, a fundamental mismatch between what we are trying to do and the resources that we are able to make available to it. If we cannot make more resources available, we will need to have a fundamental rethink about what we are trying to do.

David Kidney: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for missing the first few minutes of his speech. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was attending the very beautiful funeral service for our recently deceased and already much missed Gwyneth Dunwoody.
	I would like to concentrate my contribution on our intention to reduce troop levels in Germany and its effect on our relations with our European and NATO allies. British forces have been permanently stationed in Germany since 1945. Until the mid-1990s, the British Army of the Rhine and Royal Air Force Germany were the two main British commands in that country. Following the "Options for Change" defence review in 1991, the level of British forces in Germany was halved and the RAF was withdrawn in response to the changing dynamics of the post-cold war environment and the Government's attempts to make cost savings at that time. The strategic defence review of 1998 made further recommendations on the reduction of troops in Germany.
	At present, there are approximately 20,900 British military and 2,200 British civilian personnel stationed in Germany. The two principal units in Germany are now 1st UK Armoured Division and UK Support Command Germany. In 2004, the Ministry of Defence published its plans for restructuring the British Army by 2009. As part of the overall rebalancing process, a review of British forces in Germany was subsequently undertaken.
	Since January 2006, the Ministry of Defence has made several announcements regarding the conclusions of its review. In January 2006, it announced that 4th Armoured Brigade, which is currently re-roling into a mechanised brigade as a result of restructuring, would return to the UK in line with the continuing policy of concentrating mechanised capability domestically. Comprising approximately 4,400 military and civilian personnel located at Osnabruch and Munster garrisons, the brigade is expected to return to the UK towards the end of this year and be located at Catterick in North Yorkshire. In order to support the remaining two UK armoured brigades—7th and 20th Armoured Brigades—in Germany after the departure of 4th Armoured Brigade, it is expected that 2,200 troops will deploy to Germany within a similar time frame. The result will be a net reduction of 2,200 troops in Germany by early next year.
	In July 2006, the Government also announced that as a result of the relocation of 4th Armoured Brigade, Osnabruch barracks and most of the British military family housing belonging to the Federal Government would subsequently be returned to the Federal authorities in early 2009. The remaining barracks in Munster will also be rationalised. This withdrawal is expected to lead to the loss of approximately 530 local jobs.
	At the same time, the Ministry of Defence also announced that 12th Regiment Royal Artillery would relocate from Paderborn back to the UK as part of the reorganisation of the UK's air defence units. The regiment will be located at Thorney Island, along with 47th Regiment Royal Artillery.
	As part of the wider restructuring of forces, the MOD also made it clear that it would take the opportunity to make further adjustments to the UK's force posture in Germany. In July 2006, the MOD looked at redeploying the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps—HQ ARRC—1 Signal Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade from their bases in Germany back to the UK between 2008 and 2012. Such a move will account in total for approximately 3,600 personnel. Codenamed Operation Borona, the review was intended to determine where those forces would be located and whether the move would be practicable and offer best value for money.
	In September last year, the findings of that review were announced. Under current planning assumptions, HQ ARRC and its supporting elements will now relocate to RAF Innsworth in Gloucestershire, while 1 Signal Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade will relocate to RAF Cosford in Shropshire in the west midlands. The move of the two brigades to Cosford is expected to involve approximately 2,600 personnel and their families. The relocation of these forces back to the UK is earmarked to take place between 2009 and 2014. A detailed timetable and an identification of additional infrastructure requirements will now be established by the Borona project team over the coming months.
	The proposed move of HQ ARRC will be the priority, and consultations with interested parties, including local councils, health, education and welfare providers and the trade unions will form an important part of that assessment. Final details, including a specific timetable for the relocation of the forces, will form part of a set of recommendations to be presented for a final investment decision by the Investment Approvals Board and MOD Ministers in spring 2009.
	Alongside these moves to bring forces home from Germany, there has to be an accommodation policy so that there are places for these armed forces personnel. In this regard, the idea of the super-garrison has been developed—massing groups of forces in one area, although not necessarily in one barracks. It would make sense for these so-called super-garrisons to be based in areas where our armed forces recruit most successfully.

Lindsay Hoyle: Would my hon. Friend like to emphasise the point that the north-west is one of the most fertile recruitment grounds in the country, and will he therefore be backing the idea of a super-garrison in that area?

David Kidney: I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's oft-made point that there is good recruitment in the north-west, and I wish him well in promoting a super-garrison there. If he does not mind, however, I would like to move on to the fruitful recruitment in the west midlands, and talk about the prospects for a super-garrison in that region. There is fruitful recruitment to all our armed forces in the west midlands, and we in Stafford are interested to know whether there will be a west midlands super-garrison—and if so, whether the military base at Stafford will have a role in accommodating further personnel.
	On 19 April Stafford held a superb double celebration, as we granted the freedom of the borough to Tactical Supply Wing and 22 Signal Regiment. From the church service to the parade and the ceremony in the market square, the whole event was magnificent. I was particularly pleased that the evening TV news reporting of those special events focused on the public support for our military; people lined the town's streets in their hundreds to cheer and applaud the RAF and the Army. All of us present enjoyed the military marching and the bands playing.
	The granting of the freedom of the borough to Tactical Supply Wing recognises the 37 years that it has been part of the community of Stafford, continuing a Royal Air Force presence in the town that started before the second world war. Tactical Supply Wing was formed in 1970 at Stafford as a result of changes in the United Kingdom's defence posture. The unit became fully operational in 1971, and almost immediately deployed on operations to Northern Ireland. There has not been a day since when members of Tactical Supply Wing have not been deployed on operations somewhere in the world; deployment has often been in support of two or three operations simultaneously, as is the case today.
	The unit's role of providing aviation fuel support to the British military's helicopters is unique and requires its members to be trained to a high proficiency in order to carry out their roles anywhere in the world, in any climatic conditions, often at short notice. In its 37-year history, the unit has served in all the major conflicts in which the British military has deployed, including the Falklands war, both Gulf wars, Belize, Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Sierra Leone and, latterly, Afghanistan. The unit has also supported humanitarian operations as far afield as Nepal and Mozambique.
	Members of Tactical Supply Wing consider Stafford to be the spiritual home of their unit, and many serving and former members of the unit have made Stafford their home. At the freedom ceremony, the commanding officer, Wing Commander Nick Atkinson, said:
	"Stafford has always provided the friendly homecoming for many Tactical Supply Wing personnel returning from operations overseas. With the base forming part of the town, this has enabled Tactical Supply Wing personnel and their families to integrate, and become part of the local community."
	Lieutenant-Colonel Neil Fraser arrived at Stafford two years ago to head up a small team charged with reforming the 22nd Signal Regiment, which had disbanded in 1992 in Germany, just after the first Gulf war. The RAF ensign had just been lowered from the base, then called RAF Stafford, and the Army flag was raised on 1 April 2006. We were all in a period of much uncertainty; station facilities were closing, more than 600 uniformed RAF personnel had moved to RAF Wittering, and it had not been formally announced that the new regiment would form.
	From the moment the Army arrived, it was made to feel welcome by the whole town. As funding was found in late 2006 and early 2007, the bulk of building work was completed, and soldiers, families, vehicles and equipment moved into the renamed MOD Stafford; most came from Bulford, near Salisbury, and Colerne, near Bath, but people also came from across Germany and the rest of the UK, including Northern Ireland.
	In July 2007, the new 22 Signal Regiment had its official formation day. The Commander-in-Chief, Land and the Master of Signals welcomed the regiment back into the Army's order of battle. Even as it was being formed, the regiment had soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers are now settling into the newly named Beacon barracks, deploying on exercises, and a squadron has even been in London on public duties.
	Creating a new regiment is a huge task. Creating this regiment in Stafford, where the base is in close proximity to the town, has allowed soldiers and families to be part of the community, At the freedom ceremony, Lieutenant-Colonel Fraser said:
	"Only six months after I arrived we had babies born in local hospitals, kids at schools and dependants finding employment—we were very much embraced from the start!! We have supported where we can Remembrance Day events, High Court Openings and the various formal and charitable occasions that make Stafford a vibrant civic community. People all over the Royal Signals seem to want to serve here—and I suspect a large part of it is the location that those of us here enjoy."
	The sizeable Gurkha community, consisting of 160 soldiers and some 60 families, is well settled in Stafford too. Stafford college offers free English tuition to the soldiers and their families, which is yet another indication of the local community's support for the military. Several people from the regiment have already bought homes in the area, and the foundations are in place for stability.
	It must be a remarkable achievement for the regiment, just over a year after its reformation on 1 April 2007, to be honoured with the freedom of the borough on 19 April 2008. It is certainly a famous landmark that can be added to the regiment's history, which stretches back to its days as an air formations signals unit that landed on D-day. Then our country's leaders were discussing putting forces into Germany; today, we are discussing bringing them out of Germany.
	Altogether, the relocation of 4 Armoured Brigade, HQ ARRC, 1 Signals Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade will account for approximately 30 per cent. of British forces currently located in Germany. When the redeployment of troops back to the UK and the possible relocation of HQ ARRC were first announced in 2006, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Drayson, reiterated:
	"We will continue to make further modest adjustments to our force levels in Germany, but our plan remains to base UK forces in the country, in the form of 1 Armoured Division and its supporting units, for many years to come. These moves and the work of the project team in no way signal a change in either our commitment to the NATO alliance or our overall defence policy, nor do they in any way devalue the continued close bilateral relationship between the UK and Germany."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2006; Vol. 684, c. 130WS.]
	Aside from the UK's commitment to the NATO alliance, and Germany in particular, the basing of British troops on German soil in the longer term also continues to be regarded as important from a training perspective. During questions in the other place on 16 February 2006, Baroness Crawley confirmed that
	"we have made a commitment to stay in Germany with sizeable numbers of troops for the foreseeable future. We see Germany as a terrific training asset. We always see our need for a capability for heavy armoured divisions, and the training for those takes place in Germany, eastern Europe and Canada."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 2006; Vol. 678, c. 1254-55.]
	In January this year, Baroness Taylor reiterated that
	"units continue to be based in Germany as the UK is committed to its contribution to NATO and co-operation with its allies in the alliance. The UK also benefits from the opportunity to train armoured units in Germany, and to make use of training areas in Eastern Europe, which are less accessible from the UK. With the approval of the German Government, we plan to continue to station two armoured brigades and their supporting units in Germany for the foreseeable future."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 2008; Vol. 697, c. 235WA.]
	It is expected that the size of the British contingent in Germany in future years will total some 15,000 service personnel.
	In conclusion, we have not exactly reached the end of an era, but in future we can anticipate fewer of our forces being based in Germany. Our presence there will continue, but the mass, shape and role of our forces in Germany will change. The training and the support will be more broadly based, both across the European continent and throughout the NATO alliance.
	On the day of the freedom ceremony in Stafford in April, we were all reminded in church of the military covenant and the obligation on all of us in civilian life to value and support our armed forces because of the dangerous work that they do in our name, and the personal sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, that they make for us. I know that the Government plan to publish a Command Paper shortly to bring together all the additional ways in which all of us, in Parliament and in our communities, can keep our side of that covenant. I look forward to that publication soon.

James Arbuthnot: Our armed forces are committed across the world, and I intend to concentrate on Iraq, Afghanistan and NATO. While our armed forces are so heavily committed, I am sure that we would all wish to say thank you to our service personnel, wherever they serve, and to remember that in Iraq and Afghanistan many have died or been wounded in body or mind. We need to remember that they have not suffered in vain. What they have done in both those countries is something of which we can be exceptionally proud. We can be proud not only of what they have been doing, but of them. We can also be proud of their families, who have to stay at home worrying about their sons and daughters, which is often the most difficult thing of all. We should therefore also pay tribute to the families and say thank you to them.

Kevan Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman also pay tribute to the men and women of the armed forces, including the Dutch and Danish forces and others, who have fought alongside British troops in Afghanistan and have lost their lives? In some cases, because of the numbers of troops that they have deployed, they have lost proportionately more than countries such as ours.

James Arbuthnot: That is true. I am thinking in particular of the Canadians, who have lost a large number of troops in Kandahar province. We need to remember that we are not alone in Afghanistan. Some other countries are doing extraordinary things with small resources, and we are extremely grateful to them for working alongside us.
	Let me start with Iraq. We still have more than 4,000 UK personnel deployed in Iraq as part of Operation Telic. I personally think that that is the minimum number that we can have as a viable self-sustaining force in Iraq. We were told as much by a general in Iraq last year and by the Minister of State. I am delighted that the Minister is in his place now, because I want to tell him that he was right.
	The role to be played in Iraq is one of overwatch, which is necessary in support of an Iraqi army that is doing well but still needs support. Intervention through ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—artillery, air power and other methods is right and proper, as are the need for training and mentoring and the need to do a small part of patrolling the border with Iran. The next change in the number of troops in Iraq—I hope that it will not be too far off—should take our presence down to a small number, with between 200 and 400, or perhaps 500, troops. They should do much more specialist things, relying on others for logistics and support.
	I do not understand how the figure of 2,500 was ever on the table. How was that figure reached? It was always unrealistic and, I think, meaningless. The suspicion is that it was politically motivated—a figure plucked out of the air. That suspicion needs to be dispelled, if it can be. How on earth did the Secretary of State come to agree with it? I have to express my disappointment that it was ever put forward or supported by the Ministry of Defence. There is a risk that the MOD budget is predicated on the basis that we would be down to 2,500 troops in Iraq by now.

Julian Lewis: My right hon. Friend refers to the Secretary of State's agreeing with the reduction to 2,500. I remind him that there is widespread suspicion that the first the Secretary of State knew about the reduction was when he heard it announced in the international media.

James Arbuthnot: We look forward to hearing the answers to these important questions, which relate to the relationship between Ministers and the armed forces whom they lead.
	The Defence Committee visited Iraq last summer, and we hope to do so again this summer, subject to the points that have already been made about our medical fitness. Every time we go to Iraq we are immensely impressed by the men and women of our armed forces whom we meet. They are absolutely outstanding and so are their achievements.
	Obviously, questions remain about the coalition mission in Iraq. The US surge seems to have been successful in many respects in controlling the levels of violence. The Iraqi security forces seem to be growing in capacity, although they still need support. In that context, I believe that the recent operation in Basra, led by the Iraqis with the support of the British and the Americans, was not a bad thing but a good thing. It was the Iraqis taking control of their own destiny. Let us never forget that that is what we want them to do. The more they can do that, the less necessary the presence of our troops will be.
	Moving on to Afghanistan, as we reduce our troop levels in Iraq, however slowly we are able to do that, we have increased our commitment to Operation Herrick. We now have about 7,800 service personnel in Afghanistan—more than any other country apart from the United States. On the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) has drawn attention to the real risk that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are conflated in the public's mind. They are very different operations; they arise from different circumstances. We must make the case for each of them separately. An unpopular incursion into Iraq, although it has achieved some real successes, looks likely to drag down in the mind of the public the much more difficult incursion into Afghanistan.
	The events of 9/11 are fading gradually into people's memories as history. The horrors and fears that 9/11 raised are diminishing with time, although in reality the dangers of al-Qaeda and international terrorism remain absolutely huge. Of course, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are reminded of the important point that when we invade a country, we need to be sure what we will do with it when we have been successful, and we need to provide the resources to secure the peace as well as the war. That is what we in the west have failed to do.
	The Defence Committee visited Afghanistan in April last year. We hope to return to Afghanistan later this year. In the report that we published in the middle of last year, we concluded that reconstruction efforts required a strengthening of the comprehensive approach. There is no one answer to the issues; there is no silver bullet for Afghanistan. We said, among other things, that more work was needed to support the training of the police and the judiciary, and that much more work was needed on the winning of hearts and minds in Afghanistan and, indeed, at home. We were, of course, concerned that the burden of fighting and of the resources going into Afghanistan was falling disproportionately on a handful of NATO countries, but I have already paid tribute to the Netherlands and Canada for the outstanding nature of their contribution. Other countries are also contributing a great deal.
	I have said that Afghanistan presents a much larger task than Iraq. NATO is trying to create a democratic Government in a country that has no real history of one, and which seems to exhibit little desire for one. The raw material of Afghanistan—resources, education and infrastructure—and the availability of weapons practically everywhere make the task hugely challenging. That challenge is not yet matched by the political will and the resources in the developed world to get the whole country on to a viable road; until it is, we will not succeed.
	The future of NATO and ISAF are closely linked. Some NATO members are simply not pulling their weight in Afghanistan; others are bearing greater burdens than are reasonable. We welcome President Sarkozy's announcement of additional French troops to be sent to Afghanistan. I would welcome even more French troops being sent there. Problems remain—there are national caveats and problems of force generation—but that is symptomatic of the broader soul searching that is needed in NATO as a whole.
	We as a Committee published a report on the future of NATO earlier this year. We thought that it was an important contribution to the debate, and some of our conclusions moved in these directions. We said that the strategic concept of NATO needed to be renewed. Next year is the 60th anniversary of NATO. It needs a new focus. It needs a new clarity of purpose. It needs new political will, above all. That was what we identified as the major shortcoming of NATO at the moment. The point is not just that many NATO countries have fallen considerably below the target of 2 per cent. of GDP, but that the populations of the NATO countries seem to have forgotten what NATO is for. They concentrate much more on the European Union than on NATO, while still being less and less prepared to pay for the defence in which they are clamouring to have a greater say. It is a very odd business.
	The Committee placed great importance on the outcome of the Bucharest summit; it was a vital summit for the future of the defence of the western world. I was extremely disappointed that we did not have an oral statement on the outcome of the summit even from the Secretary of State for Defence, let alone the Prime Minister. That meant that we did not have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister on NATO at a crucial stage. For example, what is the response to Russia when it begins serious talks with separatists in Georgia? What is the response to the shooting down of an unmanned aerial vehicle owned and flown by Georgia? Those two things were a direct response to what came out of NATO. We needed an oral statement.
	NATO is the linchpin of our security. We must make sure that it adapts to the challenges of today. If we do not, the United States will lose interest in NATO, and if the US loses interest in NATO, NATO will be dead. The future of the mission in Afghanistan is very important to the future of NATO and to its whole credibility, the upholding of which forms part of the most important duty of Government—the defence of our country.
	I must not take up too much time, so I conclude by saying that we must not let our natural focus on Iraq and Afghanistan obscure the many other commitments of our armed forces. We still have substantial forces in Cyprus, although they are often part of the reserve that rapidly goes backwards and forwards to Iraq or Afghanistan, and we have just deployed 600 additional troops to Kosovo. It is essential for the UK to train for, and to be prepared for, the events that we are not facing now but may face in future. However, we are not doing that, because there is nothing left in the locker. We have been told that by the Chief of the General Staff.
	We must lift our eyes, we must lift our ambitions, we must lift our pride and we must lift the priority that we place on the defence of our country and on the wonderful men and women who undertake that task on our behalf. That requires leadership and commitment from the very top.

Quentin Davies: In the brief time for which I will speak, I want to take up four points that were raised by the Secretary of State, a couple of points that were raised by the Opposition and perhaps make one point of my own.
	First and most important, on the issue that we are most concerned about, the Secretary of State was reasonably encouraging—responsibly and moderately so—on the two great deployments that we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was absolutely right in the phrase that he used. They are the front line of our security. I have not the slightest doubt—I have said it in the House before—that had the terrorists who attacked London and Glasgow last summer had the benefit of a six-month training course in bomb-making and detonation techniques in a safe haven for terrorists in a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, they would have succeeded in killing hundreds and perhaps thousands of our people. That is the fundamental reason for our deployment there and for the brave British servicemen and women fighting there doing such a vital job. The risks to their health and lives—and it is tragic if those risks result in death or serious injury—are risks that have to be borne. We must be deeply grateful to those who are prepared to take on that enormous responsibility on behalf of the rest of our country.
	It is clear from the history of any counter-insurgency operation that 70 to 80 per cent. of the outcome is down to psychology. That is why it would be fatal to go down the road set out by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I know from personal experience that he has considerable knowledge of and interest in these matters and takes a responsible line on defence issues, but he is trapped in a party that has a terrible record of mixing short-term party politics with the defence of the nation. The greatest possible threat to our making a permanent positive contribution to providing stability in Afghanistan and Iraq, to defending ourselves from terrorism, and to ensuring that we have the best possible chance of leaving those countries with reasonably stable and democratic Governments for the long term—the best way of undermining any such chance of that scenario—would be to do what the Liberal Democrats urge on the Government, which is to make public statements on exit strategies or set public deadlines for pulling out of either of those operations.

Willie Rennie: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but did he regard the Prime Minister's statement last year that we would reduce the number of troops to 2,500 from the spring as that of a statesman or of someone who was seeking short-term party political advantage?

Quentin Davies: It was clear at the time that the Prime Minister believed that the situation in Iraq was such that it enabled us, and made it sensible for us, to reduce the number of troops from between 4,000 and 5,000 to 2,500. One can readily understand how in certain circumstances that would be a reasonable thing to do. Obviously, it would be desirable if it were possible to do that without jeopardising the success of the operation. Matters have become more complicated since then, however. It has become important to support the Americans during their surge and the al-Maliki Administration in Baghdad in trying to gain control of the country. It is very much a matter of psychology. The events in Baghdad and Basra over the past few months have shown how difficult things are. The Iraqi forces initially ran into quite a lot of trouble and bother. It was sensible to decide that this was not the moment to reduce further our forces in Iraq.
	I listen with great interest to the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, and often learn a lot from him, but I did not follow what he said today, which was to the effect that we could either have a viable critical mass in Iraq of 4,000 to 5,000 troops or have 500 or fewer. Things do not work like that. It may be possible to go down to a lower level of troops provided that there is a commensurate reduction in the threat. Clearly, if there is no threat, we do not need any force protection. Presumably, those are the circumstances in which he envisaged having a small training programme, or something, involving a few hundred of our troops. I would have thought that if there were a threat to them, they would need their own force protection, which would require a number of troops being available substantially in advance of that. It may well be that the Prime Minister felt last autumn that we were moving towards that situation. Clearly, we are not, but that does not mean to say that over the long term we will not succeed in making a considerable success of the operation. Perhaps in five or 10 years' time, if we can withdraw from an Iraq that is reasonably stable—if it is, for the first time in its history, a democratic country—we will be able to look back with pride on having kept our nerve despite the obvious and understandable public pressures to throw in the sponge and pull out prematurely.
	The second thing on which I want to congratulate the Government is quite remarkable: the number of initiatives that they have taken in the past year or two to provide material support for our troops. There has been an announcement in short order of two armed forces pay reviews, which have been accepted by the Government. I think that the results of those public sector pay reviews are the only ones to have been accepted. The one last year increased the pay of people in the lower ranks by 9 per cent. That is real money, frankly.
	At the same time, we have had the introduction of the tax-free deployment allowance and concessions on council tax, and rightly so, but they are without precedent. Commitments have been given to spend more money on improving housing, and it is very important that that be done. I will not make a party political point by saying who is actually to blame for the present administration and ownership of military housing in this country. Instructions have been given to health authorities to do what they really should have been doing automatically since 1948 and the introduction of the health service—to give priority to patients presenting with symptoms as a result of service in our armed forces.
	I have left out several things, such as the significant increase in the compensation limit. There has been an enormous number of initiatives in this field. It is a remarkable record of achievement, and as far as I can see the Government have got absolutely no credit for it whatever. I suppose that it is not surprising that they were given no credit from the Opposition Benches—party politics comes into issues even as important as this—but the media have not picked up at all on these points. However, there is no doubt that the armed forces are aware of the continuing effort.
	Thirdly, the Government have also made tremendous progress in addressing the issue of the equipment of our forces deployed on these difficult operations. There is no doubt that, as often happens when one suddenly has to send an expeditionary force to an entirely new combat zone thousands of miles away, there are bound to be deficiencies. I suppose that there has never been a case in history of a country deploying such an expeditionary force far from home and at short notice, and there not being severe deficiencies in the personal and other forms of fighting equipment, and people not having what they ideally would have liked in those difficult circumstances. However, that issue has now been addressed, and very creditably so. The urgent operational requirements system is really working, and we are getting equipment out to Afghanistan and Iraq within a few months of the requirement being identified by the military on the spot.
	In the past few months, I have had the opportunity to speak to more than 300 serving men and women in this country, many of whom had just recently returned from deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. The universal view of everyone whom I asked about personal equipment—I ask that question on every occasion, as you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is a live issue often debated in the House—was that the equipment now available to them in Iraq and Afghanistan is absolutely second to none, including to that of their American counterparts. They were very conscious of that point. That is another considerable achievement on the part of the Government.
	Unfortunately, because of the delays in coroners' inquests, coroners' judgments are still being made about the unfortunate deaths of our servicemen and women from three years ago. The Government have taken steps to spread out the inquests across the country, so those delays will now decline. References to the inadequacies of personal equipment are at least three years out of date. The tabloids pick up on that and present it as a current story—as a reflection of current reality—when in fact, that position ceased to exist some years ago. That is completely unjust and unfair, and needs to be corrected.
	The fourth and final issue that I want to address and that was raised by the Secretary of State is the quite different one of anti-ballistic missile defence. I totally agreed with what he said: the Government are absolutely right to renew and update our co-operation with the Americans on this subject, giving them the benefit of the output at Menwith Hill and Fylingdales. The Government are also right to keep the matter under review. I do not want to draw any conclusions as to what we should be doing over the next few years in this area, but it is a very serious problem.
	The fact is that the Iranians are investing in ballistic technology to an extraordinary degree. They have developed the Shahab 2 missile and are now developing the Shahab 3, with which they can potentially already achieve a range of more than 1,000 km. One has to ask why they are doing that. If we believe last December's American defence community report—it said that the Iranians abandoned their nuclear weapons programme in 2003, which would be very good news indeed—we have to ask what other kind of payload the Shahab 3s are designed to carry. Presumably, it is biological or chemical weapons—weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Ahmadinejad may be a lunatic but even he cannot be quite so mad as to spend this vast amount of money in developing ballistic missiles simply in order to carry high explosive. The cost-impact ratio would be utterly ridiculous by any standards. There is a real threat and problem there.
	The Secretary of State is right that, for the foreseeable future, we need not think about locating terrestrial land-based anti-ballistic missile systems in this country. But I am reassured that the Americans are in agreement with the Polish and Czech Governments on locating systems there. We should keep the matter under constant review and come back to it from time to time in the House. I appreciate that the Secretary of State took the initiative in raising the subject this afternoon. No one asked him to do so or raised it with him and I hope that the Government will continue to keep us informed. There will be consensus among reasonable people in this House on taking whatever responsible measures may be required in the light of the threat over the next few years. I put it no more strongly than that.
	The official Opposition—the Conservative Opposition, whom I used to support officially, but not always with great conviction in recent years—made me feel this afternoon that I was glad that I was not on those Benches. I thought how embarrassed I would have felt if I had been. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) implied strongly that he thought that it was a priority for us to get into the business of building icebreakers.

Robert Key: No, he did not.

Quentin Davies: I listened very carefully to what he said and I cannot imagine what other purpose there was of saying that Arctic warfare was so important and that we had only one icebreaker, HMS Enterprise, unless it was to make it clear that he thought we should start building icebreakers. Of all the ridiculous priorities in the world!  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) protests loyally in trying to defend his defence spokesman, but I cannot imagine what other interpretation could be placed on the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He spoke for several minutes about Arctic warfare and HMS Enterprise. What other signal was he trying to send to the House?

Robert Key: It is so simple but clearly beyond the hon. Gentleman's understanding. For those who did not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) the first time, he said that NATO did not have adequate capability if we were looking at new scenarios in the north. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to deride my hon. Friend, but he did not deride him or my party when he served with me as a defence spokesman for our party.

Quentin Davies: When the hon. Gentleman and I served as defence spokesmen in the Conservative party we certainly did not get on to icebreakers or Arctic warfare as a serious challenge. That was in the last decade and I am not sure that the geopolitical situation has changed that much. I interpreted the comments quite differently. In referring to NATO not investing in icebreakers, it sounded to me as though the hon. Member for Woodspring felt that we, as a part of NATO, should be helping to make up that deficit. He said that the Canadians were investing; the implication was that we should be as well.
	I am glad that we have had this matter exposed and I hope that the Conservative party now realises how utterly ridiculous, risible and foolish it would appear if it suggested that scarce military resources be spent on building icebreakers. The very best interpretation that can be put on the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that they were totally irrelevant and that he was wasting the House's time by raising an issue that even he did not think was relevant to the defence needs of the nation.

Kevan Jones: May I inform my hon. Friend that this is not the first time that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has raised the issue? He raised it on 1 May in a visit to Plymouth when he spoke at length on what he bored us with this afternoon. It is interesting that when he was asked to give a commitment to future basing or to the future of the surface fleet, unfortunately he could not.

Quentin Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
	The judgment of the hon. Member for Woodspring needs to be reflected on, most urgently by the hon. Gentleman himself but also by his colleagues on the Conservative Benches— [ Interruption. ] No, I have not quite finished on this subject. The Secretary of State revealed something else that I found absolutely extraordinary. I listened to it with amazement, but I know that I heard the words quite clearly, and I think that I understand the English language. It appears that the hon. Member for Woodspring has put on his website a proposal that NATO should buy up the poppy crop in Afghanistan. I cannot think of anything quite so ludicrously misconceived. To do that would enormously increase the demand for the poppies and create an enormous increase in production. It would also greatly increase the dependence of farmers and peasants in Afghanistan on poppy production and divert them from diversification into the other crops that we are trying to encourage them to grow.
	That is an extraordinarily ill thought-through set of policies. I raise this matter not because I wish to justify my leaving the Conservative party—I do not need to do that; I am very happy with my decision—but because I believe that the public need to be warned. The opinion polls show that the Tories are in the lead. That means that, if there were a general election tomorrow—I do not suppose there will be—and if the polls were reasonably accurate, we would have a Conservative Government and a Secretary of State for Defence with an obsession with icebreakers who wanted to buy up the poppy crop in Afghanistan. The public really need to reflect on these matters, and I do not apologise for raising them. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here now, but it is not my fault if he chooses not to sit through the debate, or if he chooses to make his speech and then simply walk out.
	There is one final matter that I want to raise. As the House probably knows, the Prime Minister asked me just before Christmas to lead a study into national recognition of the armed forces, which meant examining the extent to which the public understand, appreciate, identify with and support the armed forces. That study has now been completed and submitted to the Prime Minister, and I hope that it will be published very soon. Obviously I do not wish to anticipate the recommendations that it will make, but I want to make one point in that regard.
	Our conclusions were twofold. First, it will not surprise the House to learn that there is enormous public support and gratitude for the armed forces in our country, and that it is deeply and widely felt. That comes out quite clearly in the homecoming parades and in the success of the charity appeals that have been held over the past few months. There has also been evidence of that support in our debate this afternoon. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) talked about the relationship between the general community in Stafford and the military personnel based in the barracks there. That is an interesting example of a medium-sized town in which a very good relationship of that kind can exist.
	There is a widespread sense that members of the armed forces are very special. Most human beings would not be capable of spending six months of their lives in a desert without even the occasional drink, with none of the pleasures of family or social life, under constant threat of being seriously wounded or killed, sometimes living on ration packs—not, as is sometimes stupidly said in the tabloids, for months on end; that certainly does not happen, but it happens during the course of individual operations—and leading an austere and dangerous existence. The people who are prepared to do all that are extraordinary human beings. As I have said, they play an indispensable role, and civilisation would not last very long if there were no men and women prepared to do it. There have been one or two nasty incidents that appear to illustrate a certain hostility towards the armed forces, but they are the work of a very small twisted minority of people.
	Our other conclusion was that, over the years, there has been an increasing separation between the armed forces and the rest of society, although not because anyone wanted that to happen. That separation is a reflection of two things. First, as each year goes by there are fewer people with experience of serving in uniform, or who have a close family member who has served in the armed forces. A generation or so ago, the second world war generation was still largely alive and every male—at least in principle—had done national service. Conscription ended in the early 1960s, but until then almost every family had a member with experience of the military. People understood the constraints, disciplines and dangers—as well as the camaraderie, pressure and tension—that accompany military operations. Such things were better understood in society as a whole then.
	Secondly, a cultural change has taken place. I do not want to go outside the ambit of the debate, but it is generally agreed that, over the past 20 years, society has become increasingly hedonistic, short-termist and individualistic. Some might say that it has become more atomised, but I want my remarks to be a statement of fact rather than a long social critique. The fact is that the military must be based—they cannot be otherwise—on a more traditional ethos involving concepts such as public service, team effort, self-sacrifice, devotion to duty and discipline. The social and psychological divergence that has taken place is not healthy for the country as a whole or for the armed forces, because it means that people increasingly lack the familiarity, contact and knowledge on which positive feelings of gratitude and support for the military can be based. Therefore, our recommendations will be directed above all to finding ways to narrow the gap that I have identified.
	Other countries have achieved that. The evidence from America is clear: 30 years ago, after the Vietnam war, the relations between the general public and the military were very bad. To anyone who knows America now, that is extraordinary, given the American public's support for, and identification with, the military. The relationship can only be described as symbiotic. It is immensely impressive and very moving, and of course we cannot move that far in one leap. Our traditions and psychology are very different—no doubt people will say that Americans are more effusive by nature than we British are—but nevertheless there are some interesting lessons to be drawn from other countries. For example, Canada and France are other democracies that regularly deploy troops in combat situations.
	If our military are to do their job, it is very important that people support, understand and have contact with them. They need to feel that the pressures and sacrifices that they face are fully appreciated by the general public.

Robert Key: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) more in sorrow than in anger; it will be one of his last defence speeches, and I suspect that we will miss his amusing ramblings after the next general election. Despite that, I wish him well with the recovery of his left hand. He seems not to have finally developed his left hook yet, but I wish him very well in his retirement. I now wish to return to reality.
	I sometimes wonder whether we have come very far since 1892, when Rudyard Kipling wrote his famous poem "Hurrah! For the Life of a Soldier". You will recall it, Mr. Deputy Speaker:
	"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
	But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot".
	A few weeks ago, the Tisbury branch of the Royal British Legion invited me to address it at a public meeting to talk about the military covenant, and this I was privileged to do. At a full church of St. John the Baptist in Tisbury, I addressed this theme: "Tommy Atkins: do we care?" Of course, in my constituency, Her Majesty's forces are part of the fabric of our community, as are the families who follow the flag and the industrial, scientific and administrative civil servants on whom the fighting units depend. For us, it is all part of the community in which we live, and we do not consider the military to be in any degree separate from the rest of our community. We know that that is not the same all over the country, as in places where there is not the same density of military activity and personnel. There are also in south Wiltshire a large number of retired service personnel who mind very much about the reaction of the younger generation to Her Majesty's forces—the way we think about them, the way we treat them on the street and, above all, the way that we, as politicians, ask them to do the impossible and do not provide adequate resources for them to carry out their role, which we admire so much.
	That occasion gave me an opportunity to remind the Tisbury branch of the Royal British Legion that defence has changed enormously since the operational requirements to defend our country in the second world war or to fight for other people elsewhere in the world. That is one arm of our capability in defence, as is the defence of our homeland territory, but we no longer face hordes of Russian tanks approaching across the north European plain. We face a completely new sort of threat, and we have had to respond to that. Much of it, around the world, is to do with ideas, and much of it is to do with resources. Population is one of the greatest drivers of instability in the world. That is recognised in the development, concepts and doctrine centre—an excellent directorate-general in the Ministry of Defence that is often neglected but absolutely crucial to our understanding of what is going on. It points out that sustained population growth, aggressive economic competition around the world, and increasing consumption, particularly in the far east and in Asia, together with rapid modernisation and urbanisation, will result in intensive exploitation of and pressure on resources of all kinds. Those tendencies will be aggravated by the consequences of climate change, environmental changes and an increased human footprint on the globe. Consequently, the availability and flow of energy, food and water will be critical in future, with potential fluctuations and imbalances in production and distribution at global, regional and local levels. When resource challenges are identified, population expansion has the greatest single impact relative to local resources and economic growth.
	All that, together with the expansion of global media and information and communications technologies, will heighten people's sense of grievance and marginalisation and differences between the haves and have-nots nationally and internationally, leading to increased tensions and instability around the world. We can add to that the spread of communicable diseases. Those are already a feature of human life, but enhanced international travel makes it easier than ever before for them to move around the world. Familiar diseases may be eradicated but others will take their place.
	We face a completely different sort of defence threat, and we need to adopt a different defence posture. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the Chairman of our excellent Defence Committee, pointed out, we must keep our eye on the ball as regards evolving relationships between nations within NATO and our neighbours. I mentioned Greece a little earlier. It is important that we understand that much of the future of NATO depends on countries such as Greece managing to come to an accommodation with neighbours such as Turkey, particularly over Cyprus. That is crucial to the forward development of NATO relationships, not to mention the future of the European Union. I make no apology for mentioning the critical role that Greece has to play, and I hope that it realises the responsibility it carries in that respect.
	I would like to add to what my right hon. Friend said about what is happening in Iraq. Very rarely is the Royal Navy mentioned in connection with Iraq, but its role there is crucial both in protecting the oil terminals on which the future prosperity of Iraq depends, and in training the Iraqi navy. The role of the Royal Navy should never be underestimated or forgotten. We wish to pass over what happened last year, and I think that we will. We have managed to expunge much of it and learn from the experience of it.
	We should also pay tribute to the other partners in the naval operation there, notably the Australians. The Australians operate with coalition taskforce 158, which operates in the north Arabian gulf; they are part of the protection force for Iraqi oil platforms and they are very welcome. They are doing a first-class job, and they are making a substantial contribution, along with their frigate, in the north Arabian gulf. That particular maritime component, in the shape of the frigate HMAS Arunta, is the 17th rotation of an Australian ship since 2001. The Australians call that Operation Catalyst, incidentally.
	The Australians have an interesting concept of partnership with NATO. They have a rather more developed and sensitive view of the relationships between strategic defence organisations around the world. They do not want to join NATO, but recognise that partnership with NATO is crucial for global well-being and defence. The new Australian Government are developing plans in their defence White Paper for the size, capacity and shape of Australia's defence for the next 20 years. I hope that in this country we will take seriously the need to develop relationships with Australia. They do not wish to be part of NATO, but they have relationships of their own in the Pacific with New Zealand and the United States. In the Pacific, other relationships exist between, for example, the United States, Japan, South Korea and Australia, which are very much in our interest.
	People in this country have never had cause to contemplate the fact that there is a direct relationship between our standard of living and quality of life in this country—our ability to import white goods from China and electronics, television sets and motor cars from all over the world—and the security of our trade routes. Today, 90 per cent. and more of our imports are still coming by sea, and Australia is part of a global defence, particularly as far as south-east Asia and the far east is concerned. When thinking of defence in the United Kingdom, we need to think about our relationships with friends—kith and kin, if I may say so—on the other side of the world. That is important.
	I will not mention icebreakers, but I would point out that Australia has territorial claims over 40 per cent. of Antarctica. Australia's new arrangements, agreed by the United Nations, for the potential exploitation of mineral reserves in Antarctic waters not immediately abutting Antarctica are important for the future energy supplies of the free world. I hope, therefore, that we see that as part of the equation, and as another reason why we should be serious about our intentions towards our partnership with Australia.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was absolutely right to talk about the importance of the Arctic. Denmark happens to have the presidency of the Arctic Council—not many people have heard of that—from 2009-11. Denmark's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called a high-level meeting later this month on the Arctic region, to be hosted jointly by Denmark and Greenland, and Denmark's Defence Committee met our Defence Committee only last month, when that business was mentioned.
	Canada, the United States, Russia and Norway, as well as Greenland and Denmark, will discuss the importance of gas and mineral exploitation and redrawing global trade routes round the north-west passage. All that is important to us, too. I would be grateful if the Minister could find out between now and winding up whether we will attend that conference as observers. The relevant United Nations treaty provides that observers may attend such meetings. Will the British Government attend?
	I want to consider the defence budget. Member after Member has said that we provide around 2 per cent. of our gross national product to the budget but that many other NATO and European countries do not, and that there is a lack of political will. That was one of the big messages that the Defence Committee sent to the Bucharest conference in our report on the future of NATO. Our citizens do not genuinely understand what our forces are for. They understood that in the second world war, and in the days of empire, they understood why we had armies and went out and conquered other countries, but they do not understand now—and we do not make it plain—why it is in their interest not only to defend our ideas of freedom and uphold the United Nations charter, but to have a significant defence interest, thus ensuring that our quality of life and standard of living are maintained.
	There is no doubt that the United Kingdom is a force for good in the world. Above all, we defend British interests around the world. To do that, we need global reach. We simply must ensure that we can reach anywhere on the globe—in partnership, not necessarily alone. To do that, we must be realistic about defence and have the political will to pay for defence. The United Kingdom must tackle that, as must our European and NATO partners.
	I regret to say that Government Front Benchers, Opposition Front Benchers, the Treasury and our shadow Treasury team all need to be convinced by people such as me that our constituents care, too. That message was emphasised at the meeting of the Royal British Legion in Tisbury last month. My constituents, whether retired service personnel of all ranks, families following the flag, scientists or simply those who admire and recognise the need for strong forces, understand that we must pay. They have the political will.
	One or two senior figures in the shadow Cabinet groan when they see me coming, because they know that I am going to say, "Double the defence budget." I am on record as saying that, and I repeat it: we should seriously consider doubling the defence budget. That would have an electrifying effect on this country's economy and much else for which the nation stands. We need to rebuild confidence in our nationhood and a good way of achieving that is through a substantial increase in the defence budget so that we do not simply moan and whinge about the lack of resources for the military but tackle the problem. Politicians in the House of Commons must convince our electors that we need to pay for defence. I hope that that message will come from my constituents loud and clear. I believe that I represent them properly when I say that no one has yet disagreed with my proposition that we need a substantial increase in defence expenditure.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but we are running out of time. If contributions can be kept reasonably brief, I shall do my very best to call all of them.

Kevan Jones: May I, first, apologise to you and the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being present for the beginning of the Secretary of State's speech? I was with other hon. Members at the funeral of Gwyneth Dunwoody.
	It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), who is a fellow member of the Defence Committee. One thing that we can say about his contribution is that it was certainly not lightweight. It was good old-fashioned Toryism, which we all recognise. Indeed, the public would perhaps understand such forthright talk more than the spin that we get from those on his Front Bench.
	Today's debate has been about equipment and big geopolitical issues, but I want to talk about the important element of defence—the people involved in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has already mentioned the fact that the general public's understanding of the armed forces is not as strong as it was, say, 50 years ago, because our armed forces have a smaller footprint and because there is less daily or weekly contact in public life in certain parts of the country. I look forward to reading my hon. Friend's paper, which will reinforce some of those points.
	What catches the public's attention is the fact that our armed forces are deployed in two areas of conflict and that people are coming back maimed or are making the ultimate sacrifice. That makes it more important to try to ensure that the general public not only support our armed forces but understand the debt of gratitude that we owe them.
	I have been a member of the Defence Committee for the past seven years. I have had the privilege of visiting Iraq on five occasions and Afghanistan on three. I hope to return to both countries later this year, if I can pass the strict fitness test that the MOD has implemented. However, looking at the girth of both the Secretary of State and the Minister, I think that I may be in with a chance. On a serious note, let me stress to the Minister that we should not implement rules that prevent parliamentarians from visiting our armed forces in those two theatres. My visits proved invaluable. Many members of the Defence Committee and others who visited returned with not only knowledge but pride at seeing our young men and women doing the job that they are doing.

Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that military personnel serving in those difficult situations do not want to feel that they are a forgotten Army? They appreciate visits by Members of Parliament and journalists, including embedded journalists, who can report in detail on their daily activities.

Kevan Jones: I am not sure that our armed forces abroad welcome visits by all journalists, but every time I have visited them, I have always felt welcome. People sometimes ask, "Are they forthright in their views?" and I have to say that they are.
	I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) has done on increasing public recognition for those serving in Afghanistan and, along with the all-party Army group, on organising the reception on the Terrace for 52 Brigade a few weeks ago. It was a tremendous event and everyone involved should be proud. We should continue such work—indeed, I know that he plans to. I met two inspiring individuals at the reception: Marine McBean lost an arm and a leg in a landmine explosion in Afghanistan and Marine Mark Ormrod lost both legs and an arm. However, speaking to them and sensing their courage—they were not going to let their terrible injuries hold them back—was very humbling. I also want to pay tribute to the City of London for last night's celebrations, as it is important that we salute heroes.
	What I am going to say might bring groans from the Opposition, but I want to pay tribute to Prince Harry and Prince William. The two wounded soldiers to whom I spoke were tremendously grateful that the princes had taken the trouble to go to Headley Court to speak to them. Last night, many of the soldiers' families clearly welcomed the princes' involvement. This issue has turned into a political football, but we should try not to make it so. From speaking to these young men who went through traumatic, life-changing experiences by losing their limbs, it is clear that they are dedicated to getting back into service. They want to put something back; they are neither negative nor in any way seeking to apportion blame.
	I want to pay tribute to Headley Court's nursing staff, who are to some extent unsung heroes. I met a number of them at a reception recently and it was clear that they were dedicated and hard-working men and women. They are doing a tremendous job.
	Let me mention another young man from Newcastle, who shows the determination of some of the individuals involved. Following treatment at Headley Court, 21-year-old Lance Bombardier Anthony Makin, who lost part of his lower leg in a landmine explosion in Afghanistan, is going back there later this year. He is determined to make a continuing contribution to the defence of this nation. People such as him should be accorded huge recognition and respect.
	Great advances have been made in medical services. I want to refer to a forgotten report of a few weeks ago, which did not get a great deal of coverage: the seventh Defence Committee report, "Medical Care for the Armed Forces". I believe that it was not widely reported because it highlighted a good news story. The opening summary states:
	"The clinical care for Servicemen and women seriously injured on operations is second to none."
	All members of the Committee of all political parties were tremendously impressed by what goes on at Selly Oak and other defence medical establishments around the country. Our Chairman, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), said that when we were in Afghanistan, we saw the great work done in theatre, with doctors embedded at the front line and people receiving medical services and treatment of the highest quality. There is no way that many of those people would have survived without it.

Tobias Ellwood: Without detracting from the fantastic work done at Selly Oak and Headley Court, which I recently visited, does the hon. Gentleman agree that more should be done in respect of the mental health of soldiers who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq? I was astonished to learn from a parliamentary answer that 15 members of the armed forces had committed suicide while still in uniform after returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not know the figure relating to those who hung up their uniforms after returning, but I suspect that it is at least double. I believe that we should do far more to look after the mental, as well as the physical, welfare of our soldiers.

Kevan Jones: The report deals with that issue. We recognised what the Government had done to support Combat Stress, and I pushed hard to ensure that we could monitor people throughout their lives. It is no good letting people leave the armed forces and be forgotten by the system. One recommendation—there seems to be some reluctance to take it up—was to have a patient passport. That would allow people to be monitored throughout their lives—not just their physical health, but, more importantly, their mental health. I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.

Willie Rennie: I am a member of the Defence Committee, which produced the report, and I found many instances of first-class care. However, one of the evidence sessions in Scotland was cringeworthy. The quality of the advice and support from the officials and the Executive was disgraceful. Last week, the Scottish Executive announced a fund of £127,000 over three years for veterans in Scotland, which is a miserly and pathetic response to the report.

Kevan Jones: As the hon. Gentleman says, when we took evidence in the Scottish Parliament we were shocked by the arrogance and how ill-informed the contributions were. I hoped that our report, which is quite critical of that, would go some way to put it right. If it has not, I am concerned, and the Committee might want to return to the matter.
	Anyone who goes to Selly Oak must be impressed not only by the level of care but by the commitment and dedication of staff. However, we were critical of the media's reporting of Selly Oak—I was not surprised that that did not receive much media coverage. I raised with the director and the armed forces personnel there every single story in the press I could find about lurid topics such as soldiers being abused by Asian patients, and not one of them could be substantiated. In our report, we said:
	"It seems clear that there has been much inaccurate and irresponsible reporting surrounding care for injured Service personnel at Birmingham, and that some stories were printed without being verified or, in some cases, after the Trust had said that they were untrue."
	The Committee roundly condemned that, and we said that editors should be responsible about what is reported. Anyone who is looking at Selly Oak should go there and talk to the people and listen to some of the stories, because world-class medical care is being provided. I urge Members of all parties not to repeat some of these stories, because they are completely untrue and do a lot to undermine the credibility of the great work that is being done.
	I was also impressed with the medical services that are now embedded in the NHS. I know that the decision to close stand-alone military hospitals has been controversial. The decision was taken by the previous Conservative Government, and it was right, because a high level of clinical expertise is now embedded in some units and the clinicians acquire experience that they could not get in stand-alone military hospitals. We therefore think that that was the right decision, and we also support the continued closure of Haslar—although I know that the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) is not very happy about that.
	Overall, what we found was a good news story, although the Committee must keep things under review. I must also echo a comment: were things all right three or four years ago? I am not sure that they were; I think we have improved, and that the pressure that has been applied has helped.
	Another issue being kicked around like a political football is one on which we must try to get some perspective: compensation for armed forces personnel injured or killed abroad. If we had a bottomless pit of money, we would open it up for these people, but there is not a bottomless pit of money in politics—that also applies for future Governments of any political persuasion. However, this Government have made some major moves forward, and they have been unfairly criticised for what they have tried to do. I served on the Bill Committee that dealt with the armed forces compensation scheme, which for the first time ever brought in lump sum payments for people who are injured—sometimes horrifically, as we have seen in some examples in Afghanistan and Iraq. That was a major move forward. Before that, there were no lump sum payments. From the media frenzy around this, it might be thought that this Government have done nothing at all, but we have: we have given the lump sum payments plus the lifetime pension. People can score political points if they want, but the previous Conservative Government did nothing on this, and we should be proud of what we have done. It is, however, right to keep the issue under review, and the example of Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson showed that the scheme needs tweaking. The Government are looking at that.
	I urge people not to jump on bandwagons. I have great respect for the Royal British Legion, but having sat on the relevant Committee I am aware of the implication that other Members argued for more lump sum payments. Nothing was said at the time, and people should give the Government credit when they do the right thing.

Gerald Howarth: I wish to put it on record that there was concern at the time that the tariff would not take full account of the potential range of injuries to which the men might be subject. The scheme was also financially neutral, with no extra money.

Kevan Jones: Those points were raised, but there was no criticism of the actual changes. The hon. Gentleman sat on the Committee with me, and I tabled an amendment to extend pension benefits to unmarried partners, who did not have any automatic entitlement. He should remember that he opposed that amendment, so I do not want any lessons from him about support for the armed forces. Many hundreds of unmarried partners would have had no access to benefits if we had followed his line.
	I hope that the Government introduce a coroners Bill in this year's Queen's Speech. It is unacceptable that families should suffer the delays that they are suffering. I mean no criticism of individual coroners: the problem is the archaic system that they face. Such a Bill should recognise the unique nature of military deaths. I urge the British Legion not to jump on the bandwagon that favours legal assistance for military families to attend inquests. That will just feed lawyers. I want to see good support and information given to families who attend inquests and it may be that we need more money for family liaison officers, but we should not feed lawyers and barristers. People will know of my prejudice against the profession if they followed my contributions to the passage of the Legal Services Act 2007.
	I hope that the long-awaited Command Paper will challenge us on some issues. We need a detailed discussion on the role of the MOD in relation to service charities. I passionately believe that service charities do a fantastic job and possibly deliver some services to service families better than the state could ever do, but we need to know where the dividing lines are. At the moment, the Government are being criticised and people ask why they are not doing certain things, but service charities can do them better.
	We owe a debt of gratitude to those brave men and women who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. If people want to see British youth at its best, they should visit our armed forces on operations. Courageous decisions are taken and huge responsibility is placed on very young shoulders.

Bob Russell: I am mindful of the needs of others, and of your request for shorter speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall jettison half my speech. Unfortunately, not every hon. Member plays the team game.
	The subject matter of the debate is defence in the world, and I shall concentrate all my remarks on that issue, rather than on some of the subjects about which we have heard in the past few hours. Some 3,500 soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade, based in Colchester garrison, are in Helmand province, Afghanistan. I know that the whole House will wish them well, and a safe return. I visited Afghanistan earlier this year, and I passed the medical test. I suspect that if I can pass it, many others can too.
	The serious point is that we owe a great debt of gratitude to our brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to those who have served in other theatres in the past, for what they have done. I want to return to a point that I have put to both the present Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister, and that has also been made today, about the lack of support from other NATO countries for our troops in Afghanistan. We should thank those on the roll of honour—Holland, Denmark, Latvia and Estonia, alongside the US and Canada—for their contribution. The question is: where are the troops, air frames and logistical support from Spain, Poland and Italy, and Germany and France in particular?
	To my mind, our army is under-strength and over-stretched. If it was not for the fact that 10 per cent. of the British Army is drawn from overseas, that situation would be even more dire. Clearly, something has to be done to improve recruitment and, more particularly, retention.
	Let me briefly bring together the aspects of retention that the Government need to address. The new single-person accommodation provided at Merville barracks at the Colchester garrison is first-class. We should seek to repeat that success wherever we can. The married quarters, however, are not as good as they could be. I find it unacceptable that in the past 10 years or so the MOD has paid more in rent to Annington Homes than the Government received in 1995-96 when the MOD housing stock was privatised. If that same amount of money had been invested in modernising and improving our housing stock, every married quarters in this country would be the best they could be. I put it to the Minister that the Government should consider ways of converting rental payments as a hire-purchase means of regaining a capital asset that was sold in a ridiculous privatisation—a rip off, giving Annington Homes a licence to print money. For example, more than 200 MOD houses are standing empty in my constituency, for which Addington Homes receive about £750,000 a year for doing nothing. The public purse will pump billions of pounds over the next few years into upgrading and modernising housing stock that the public will not own.
	I pay tribute to the garrison welfare services and the community in Colchester for all the support that they give families in Colchester. I pay particular tribute to the  Colchester Gazette, which produces a "Support our troops" news item almost daily. That is the sort of thing that the Prime Minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff are urging communities to do.
	So that our soldiers in Afghanistan can be relieved of their worries at home, I ask defence Ministers to discuss the proposals to shut the secondary school in Colchester with their colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, in the spirit of joined-up government. Approximately a quarter of the schoolchildren at the Alderman Blaxill school have a father—sometimes, a mother, but usually a father—serving in the Army, and most of those dads are in Afghanistan, knowing that the school that their children attend is under threat of closure. I believe that that threat could and should be lifted, and I urge the Ministry of Defence to discuss that with their colleagues, in a spirit of joined-up government, to get that closure stopped.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. My first question is whether "Defence in the World" is an appropriate title for such debates. As we have heard in all the contributions today, we must consider not simply what the military are doing in the corners of the globe, but exactly how their operations fit into the peacekeeping, nation building and growth of the communities involved. That is well beyond the remit of any military, and I therefore suggest that these debates be widened to include the work of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so that we fully understand how the MOD operates in connection with those other organisations. For example, in Iraq, security remains bad, but is it the military's fault that not enough schools are built, that there are not enough hospitals and that we have not established the local and regional government structures that should have been put in place in the very early months when there was an element of peace?
	Today, five years after the invasion, Basra teeters on the brink of civil war and Anbar province—the biggest province—has been ethnically cleansed. In the social context, unemployment is rife, electricity is intermittent and petrol for transport remains sparse. Some 25 per cent. of Iraqis totally depend on food rations, according to the UN, and only 3,000 of the 15,000 schools destroyed or damaged have been repaired. According to UNICEF, up to 75 per cent. of children are not attending schools. Iraq's Ministry of Water says that only 32 per cent. of the population have access to drinking water and only 19 per cent. have access to good sewerage systems.
	Hon. Members might ask what that has to do with defence in the world. The point is that we are still in Iraq, and because these issues have not been solved, we continue to stay in Iraq. My argument is that other aspects of Cabinet Departments are not doing enough to support our military to ensure that once the umbrella of security is created, our military can leave, leaving behind a strong sense of governance and the building blocks for a nation to continue on its own.
	In my view, we cannot call what we see in Iraq a success story. It has been a costly failure in peacekeeping—a textbook example of how not to nation-build—resulting in a prolonged, testing and ultimately unwinnable task for our armed forces, which, after providing a small window of peace, are now hopelessly and totally abandoned by the FCO, and, indeed, by DFID. There was no plan, no strategy and no idea how to harness the euphoria of the fall of Saddam Hussein and to sow the seeds of governance.
	I do not wish to take away from the individual work and strengths of DFID and Foreign Office representatives, but those two Departments have totally failed the MOD and the military who are still stuck on Operation Telic many years after those other organisations have disappeared. DFID is no longer to be seen in any sense or form in Basra on the scale that should have been there when we first went in. We have moved from being liberators to being occupiers. I am afraid that our military have borne the brunt of that, and they get very little thanks for what they have managed to achieve.
	It could be argued that perhaps if Saddam Hussein had invaded somewhere, or done something proactive, we would have had to expedite a force to go out and rush in there. However, as memoirs are written and the information comes out of the system, we see that General Franks, who led the initial invasion, was approached, as the commander of US Central Command, back in November 2001 to start to create the plans of attack to invade Iraq. There was plenty of time to formulate a plan for what we would do after the invasion was complete. In May 2003, President Bush stood on top of the Abraham Lincoln, saying, "Mission accomplished." We have failed in Iraq because we did not use that important window of opportunity. Rather than our being able to take advantage of the confusion, the power vacuum has been filled not by us, and not by good Iraqi governance, but by al-Qaeda, which was not there in the first place. That is what has led to our being seen not as liberators but as occupiers. We have lost the hearts and minds of the good people—the Iraqis—who wanted us to move forward.
	To confuse matters, we now talk about the militants in Basra. The situation is more complicated than that. The Fadhila party and the Mahdi army are two different operations. The Fadhila party has responsibility and the mayorship of Basra, but the Mahdi army wants that power. The conflict between the two militias is causing the friction, and the only thing that united all the militias in Basra was a hatred of the British. That forced us to move from Basra palace to the airport itself. I am saddened by how we were forced to withdraw. My battalion—the 4th Battalion, The Rifles—was part of that, and it did a fantastic job in trying to patrol in very difficult circumstances. However, we must ask whether it is correct for 750 soldiers to patrol a city of 1.5 million people if those soldiers do not have the support of DFID and the FCO.
	The problems manifested themselves in the uprising on 9 April. The Secretary of State said today that the grip of the militias had now been broken, but I beg to differ. As we heard from other interventions at the time, it is clear that the Iraqis could have contained the situation only with the support of the Americans. Indeed,  Time magazine has reported this week that US and British planes had to be called in and that medical supplies and even bottles of water were needed to support the Iraqis. According to the Iraqi Government, many soldiers refused to fight. Many surrendered and many switched sides; 1,300 soldiers deserted. That is why UK and American special forces were needed to try to quell the uprising. The situation is not under control; it is very much teetering on the brink of civil war. We have walked away from the issue and it is less in the headlines than it has ever been before. However, there will be a period of uncertainty before there is any long-term peace in the south and in the Shi'ite sector.
	The scenario for the Sunnis in central Iraq is a different one. As I said, ethnic cleansing has taken place in Anbar province, and although there is relative peace there, that is because of the awakening project in which the Americans paid militias and gave them uniforms so that they could patrol their areas. That might have purchased a temporary peace, but what will happen when the Americans depart and that money dries up? When I was on a recent visit to Iraq, the Iraqi Government made it clear that they would not continue to pay the militias for what they were doing. The militias are outside the structure of governance and there is a worry that they will turn their sights on the south and the Shi'ites. We will then have full-scale war. I hope that that will not happen, but it is certainly on the cards. The prospect of things heading that way is very worrying.
	I am saddened that we seem to be running away from Iraq with our tail between our legs after we had such an opportunity in the relative peace to do something positive. Unfortunately, we face a similar situation in Afghanistan. Again, a lack of co-ordination within the international community means that money and effort are not getting to the front line. The centralised model of governance means that we do not recognise or celebrate the mixture of tribes, alliances and allegiances that actually make up Afghanistan. The Americanised constitution that was imposed on Afghanistan ignores the Loya Jirgas that set up their own democratic structures, and we rushed into creating an elected system of governance that is limited to Kabul only. We need to look at recognising better the Pashtuns, the Tajiks, the Hazaras and the Uzbeks, and the differences that exist across the nation, and to take a much more federalist approach than the centralist model, which is clearly not working.
	Time is against me, and I must conclude. Kinetic activity is not the only thing that the Ministry of Defence needs to be concerned about. It is part of the fight to contain insurgency, but a wave of support must come in behind it. There must be reconstruction and redevelopment. If there is not, all we do is end up killing the bad guys; the good guys wait around for something to happen, and when it does not, they ask, "What have we actually witnessed?" That is the big difference between following through our commitment and leaving it to the military to create a peace of which no one ever takes advantage.
	It is clear that the Kabul Government are weak and that we are not harnessing the exports because there is not the infrastructure to do so. The international community needs to do more to get the road and railway systems working so that things can be exported. Afghanistan was one of the world leaders in exporting fruit, which was its main export before the Soviet invasion. Not only is the country now unable to grow fruit in any great measure because the irrigation system was not repaired properly after its destruction by the Soviets, but there is no method of getting it out of the country and linking up with world export markets. We have been there for a number of years, and even today no one is working on those things under the limited and fragile umbrella of security put together by the military.
	Fighting asymmetric battles is not just about shooting the bad guys, but about helping, and being seen to help, the good guys. ISAF, in its limited role, needs to expand what it does. I heard General Richards speak at an event last night. He was shocked to hear how much Royal Engineers were doing to repair our own barracks again and again, in and around the various Afghan towns and cities, rather than their being sent to do work outside where the civilian contractors refuse to go.
	We have the ability in NATO to do more for the reconstruction effort. There is a question mark over NATO's future. More can be done to expand the peacekeeping mission to include not just fighting, but a proactive approach to peacekeeping itself. Iraq and Afghanistan are our generation's war. My worry is that the lack of a plan in both cases means that we will be fighting it for much longer.

Bernard Jenkin: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) on his remarks about the lack of co-ordination between DFID and the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is one of the abiding problems that NATO as a whole and even our own Government have failed adequately to address.
	In a wider context, it has become something of a cliché to say that following the tearing down of the Berlin wall, we now live in an age of uncertainty. Increasingly, however, the Government are becoming lost in a fog of their own making about how to engage in the new world disorder. The central policy of this tired Government has become to abdicate their responsibilities, seeking to subcontract their foreign and defence policy to international institutions. While they waste their political capital on such an unrealistic policy, there is almost complete paralysis in the Ministry of Defence. It is so stretched by the demands that are placed on it by the Government's foreign commitments that it is now living virtually from month to month. The three-year spending round is clearly insufficient to pay for current procurement programmes or to match the stated manning requirement, but the Government seem determined to avoid the consequences of that. There was a meeting in the Ministry of Defence last week to try to resolve the spending difficulties, but substantial decisions still come there none. The Government will do all they can to avoid facing up to the key point that they have not adequately funded the armed forces. While Ministers keep their heads in the sand, the serious point is that the UK is in danger of relegating itself to a third division status among the world powers.
	The current Government's attitude to foreign affairs appears to involve a further retreat into a reliance on international institutions, such as the UN, the EU, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Here, so the Prime Minister told us recently, can our influence be most effective, reforming those institutions to make them more powerful and more effective for the 21st century. The Prime Minister's foreign policy speech in Boston identified many of the further challenges, but the world's problems will not be solved by committee meetings in New York or Brussels; they will be solved only on the streets of Baghdad, Kabul and other cities in Asia, Africa and the middle east.
	The Prime Minister says that
	"global problems require global solutions; the greatest of global challenges demands of us the boldest of global reforms".
	However, such truisms do not seem to grasp the fact that the only real actors in global events are not the international institutions but the nations they represent. Hence, China will not compromise on industrialisation in the face of western fears about climate change; Iran will not give up her desire to obtain nuclear weapons, or stop interfering in the security of her neighbour, Iraq; and Russia will not stop pursuing the aggressive, bullying nationalism that has characterised the Putin presidency, such as the threatening of energy supplies to its neighbours. Those very same countries render impotent the international institutions in which the Prime Minister keeps vesting so much of his political capital.
	The west is not immune, either. The Government should reflect on the fact that the United States will not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court because, somewhat justifiably, it wishes to protect its soldiers against malicious legal actions. France will be France; Germany will be Germany. The idea that major international actors such as the US, China and Russia are altruistically going to give up national interest to pursue a so-called global agenda is little more than a cod-Marxist fantasy. If the Prime Minister is to make a real impact on the world stage, he must deal with the world as it now is and not how he wishes it to be, and be prepared to assert our own role on the world stage.

Willie Rennie: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is interesting, but does he not recognise that sometimes there are common interests between countries, and that we should therefore work together where we have those common interests?

Bernard Jenkin: Of course we have common interests on which we should work together, but we cannot allow other nations effectively to veto our own foreign policy by exercising their veto in the international institutions. As the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, proved time and again, in the end it may only be the bilateral and multilateral ad hoc options that are available to us. Insisting that the only way to validate one's foreign policy is to have it stamped by the EU or the United Nations is to tie one's hands to national agendas that are different from ours—to the agendas of countries that have no intention of allowing us to veto those agendas.
	So we see the UK disappearing into the background on the world stage. The Prime Minister's absence from the Lisbon treaty signing was met with anger on the part of foreign politicians, diplomats and journalists. How can the Prime Minister expect to have any influence if he absents himself? One official said that
	"he has no position in Europe, he occupies no ground".
	At last month's NATO summit, the Prime Minister was similarly invisible. Where was Britain's voice when the issue of Georgian and Ukrainian membership was being discussed? We heard strong arguments on both sides from America, France and Germany, but virtually nothing from the United Kingdom. By the time the vital meeting with the Russians took place—on the final day of the summit—the Prime Minister had fled the scene. The last to arrive at Lisbon, the first to leave Bucharest: is that the way to promote the UK on the world stage?
	To compound that, the Prime Minister failed to come to the House to give an oral statement on the outcome of the NATO summit—a quite extraordinary precedent given the importance of the summit for Afghanistan, for the enlargement of NATO, for missile defence, for relations with Russia and for the unresolved issue of EU-NATO relations. The Defence Secretary told the House last week that everything was going well in Afghanistan, but a report drawn up by the Foreign Office at the Prime Minister's request and distributed to our NATO allies warns that
	"Critical military gaps remain to be filled."
	That is not the story we are told on the Floor of the House; it is the sort of candour we could do with.
	The Prime Minister's effort to dissociate himself from Mr. Blair means that he has adopted a one foot in, one foot out approach to our deployment in Iraq. Again, this is the worst of all possible worlds. While the Americans surged into Iraq last year—despite all the obstacles and difficulties, they have made a lot of progress—the British Government were looking to get out of Iraq. Even that has failed. In the wake of his pre-election stunt to try to overshadow the Conservative conference, the Prime Minister told the House in October that he was planning to reduce the size of Operation Telic from 5,500 last September to just 2,500 by now. That simply defied the military logic, as explained by the Minister for the Armed Forces to the Select Committee in July. He said that
	"in an actual overwatch situation we cannot go much below 5,000 because we have to sustain the force and self-protect the force itself."
	So it has proved. Operation Telic is now stuck at around 4,000 for the foreseeable future. The Prime Minister has made himself look foolish and devious in the eyes of our servicemen, the British public and our allies. He raised the hopes of our servicemen—who thought they were going to be home soon—and their families, and then dashed them.
	Southern Iraq is supposed to be a British responsibility and yet it is the Americans who have had to divert troops from central Iraq to fight in the south. I wonder what it feels like to be stationed at Basra airport watching the Americans do our fighting for us because the British Government have lost the political will and run out of the military capacity. A Labour Member said earlier that overstretch was just a myth promulgated by the Conservatives; he should listen to some of his hon. Friends, who will tell him the truth about how little military capacity we now have. The fact that we are now deploying to the Balkans the 2nd Battalion, The Rifles so soon after their return from Iraq underlines how overstretched we are.
	The Government's bungling in Iraq has seriously undermined our credibility with the Americans as well. The Government's failure to commit the necessary resources or show the stomach for the fight has caused a sense of private and sometimes public betrayal among the American military and politicians. Of course General Petraeus is going to say something diplomatic when he appears before the press in London, but the disillusion goes up to the most senior levels. Senator McCain has said of the British withdrawal from southern Iraq that he
	"did not think it was a good idea."
	That is about as blunt as the special relationship gets in public from a US presidential candidate—the one I hope will win. While we are still talking about scaling back our forces in Basra, the US army has sent a brigade to the city. Is that what we mean by standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies—indeed, our most important ally?
	The underlying problem is that the Government have failed to underline the reality of their foreign policy with their defence policy. Since 1999, the Government have pursued an interventionist foreign policy without providing the armed forces with the necessary resources. We do not need to rehearse all the figures again. The strategic defence review promised, but did not deliver.
	The Government point out that they are increasing defence spending, but after the additional spending they have pledged specifically for accommodation, salary increases, council tax rebate, the carriers and Trident's successor, the increase over the course of the comprehensive spending review is just 0.6 per cent., not 1.5 per cent. per year as published by the Government. The picture is worse when one factors in defence costs inflation, which was raised earlier in the debate. The spending increases are tiny in comparison with those that the Government have found so easily for other public services such as health, education and overseas aid.
	The numbers in the armed forces are falling: there are 1,000 fewer soldiers this year than last. Major projects have been delayed and there are endless stories of budgetary chaos at the MOD. The Government have become ashamed to come to the House of Commons to discuss military matters, hence the written rather than oral statements on NATO and our deployment to Kosovo.
	The MOD has found itself a prisoner of the Prime Minister's indecision. It cannot cut one of the big programmes because of the cost in headlines and job losses, but it is not being given the money to pay the bills either. General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue told the Select Committee that he suspected that cuts would have to be made
	"but which they are and what they will be I do not know. We are in the middle of a planning round."
	That was months ago, yet there is no sign of any decisions having been made. When asked how the scale of difficulty in this planning round compared with others, he said:
	"I think it is a greater challenge this year than it was in 2007".
	When asked whether he remembered the situation ever being as much of a challenge as it is today, he replied:
	"Yes. When I was an MA back in the late 1970s we had some pretty challenging times".
	Of course, a Labour Government were in charge in the late 1970s.
	Mr. David Gould, the chief operating officer, said:
	"The Chairman specifically asked whether this was as serious as we had ever known it at least in recent years. To that I would say yes, although my memory goes back to the 1970s as well and I can think of times when maybe it was worse. That is not an atmosphere in which it is easy to take big decisions on commitments."
	It was because of that atmosphere that the Committee felt it necessary to conclude in its report that the Ministry of Defence
	"needs to take the difficult decisions which will lead to a realistic and affordable equipment programme".
	We see no sign at the moment of those decisions being made.
	The national security strategy says that
	"we are entering a phase of overall reduced commitments, recuperation of our people, and regrowth and reinvestment in capabilities and training as much as equipment."
	I put it to the House that that is clearly fantasy. Since that statement was published, our numbers in Afghanistan have risen and are likely to remain high for the foreseeable future, the draw-down from Iraq has been cancelled, and we have now made the deployment of 2nd Battalion, The Rifles to Kosovo. This is not a phase of reduced commitments, and nor is it likely to become one. The Government are totally detached from reality if they think that we are about to enter such a phase in the short, medium or long term.
	The MOD's development, concept and doctrine centre at Shrivenham has made it clear that global instability is likely to get worse, not better, over the next generation. It forecasts a relative decline in US power, continued weapons proliferation, pressures caused by big demographic changes and population growth, more famine, the effects of climate change, and increasing competition for limited resources such as fresh water, food and energy. Much of that will be concentrated in the most unstable parts of the world. Who is going to deal with these problems if we are stepping back from our role on the world stage?
	Future Governments will have to decide what they want the armed forces to be capable of. Will a reformed United Nations step in to fulfil the role? Dream on! And there is certainly no sign of other European nations doing so. Only on Monday, the former German ambassador to the United Kingdom told the  Financial Times:
	"Most EU governments will not be capable or willing to raise their defence budgets substantially".
	If not Europe, then who? India, perhaps? Or do we want to see China or Russia doing more? I do not think so. The fact is that there are only three major democracies in this world that are prepared to project military power on the world stage. We are one of them, and if we abdicate our role, we will become yet more dependent on the United States, while having less influence over what it does.
	The debates that we have in this House on Britain's defence in the world are likely to become less and less relevant to what is happening in the world, unless we in the House are prepared to commit the resources that our armed forces need to do the job that they do so heroically on our behalf.

Willie Rennie: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have six minutes in which to complete my remarks. I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate. Defence in the world is one of those topics that could cover anything, and I regard it as including Rosyth, which is in my constituency and which I hope will be the base for the final construction of the aircraft carriers. However, the title of the debate clearly does not include the Scottish National party as, yet again, none of its members are present this afternoon. I do not make that point purely for party political reasons, but one of the important responsibilities that that party now has is for veterans in Scotland, and it has been found sadly lacking in that regard.
	I want to speak first about Iraq. The situation there has become, if not humiliating, then certainly embarrassing. The various U-turns over recent months have included the Prime Minister's change of mind about reducing troop numbers there to 2,500. In addition, 26 Mahdi army prisoners were released, only for them to take part in the uprising that took place a few months later. Finally, the Defence Secretary boasted about the training of Iraqi forces, but then had to rely on the Americans to prop us up over the course of that uprising. The Government's policy is in tatters, and our troops in Iraq deserve better.
	I hope that the Minister winding up the debate will tell us what is going to happen next. Will there be another great prediction of when our troops will be withdrawn? My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said that they should be withdrawn over a phased period, and I support that, but I want to hear what the Government have to say.
	I turn now to Afghanistan, where the poppy crop is an indicator of our success or failure. In itself, it is not the problem but a symptom: it flourishes when there is a lack of security. I am reminded of the film "Groundhog Day", as we have gone over the same arguments again and again about creating alternative livelihoods and putting in place the necessary security. I hope that the Minister will tell us what barriers prevent that from happening. I was a member of the Defence Committee, but it was never spelled out to me exactly what needs to be done to break the vicious cycle that has led to an increase in the size of the Helmand poppy crop.
	We have not heard much about Pakistan today, although that country has been a great concern over the past few months. What has the Minister to say about the relationship with Pakistan? Is it now playing an even more important role in making sure that extremists do not cross the border with Afghanistan as freely as they have in the past? Has the change of leadership in Pakistan led to greater co-operation with Afghanistan?
	Two important developments in disarmament are coming up. First, there are due to be talks on nuclear proliferation in 2010, and I hope that the Prime Minister will make them a top priority. He included them in the security statement that he made only a couple of months ago, but almost as an afterthought. I hope that the talks rise higher in the Government's list of priorities and that, instead of playing about with numbers, they make it clear that their aim is to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether. That would be a bold ambition, but it is one that needs to be delivered. The Prime Minister should take the lead in the talks, so that other countries realise that Britain regards getting rid of nuclear weapons as a top priority.
	The second development in disarmament is that a special conference on cluster munitions will be held at the end of this month, when many countries will come together to talk about possibly ending their use. I do not know whether the Government still hold on to the false differentiation between smart and dumb cluster bombs. I hope that we can get rid of all such differentiations, and realise that cluster bombs of all type should be banned.
	Finally, it would be remiss of me if I did not mention aircraft carriers, as people in Rosyth are very concerned that no decision has yet been taken about the main contracts. The Defence Secretary announced the final go-ahead before last summer's recess but I am not sure what the point was as, although some minor contracts have been awarded, there has been little progress since.

Julian Lewis: It is often alleged that this Government have no strategy and are hopeless, adrift and directionless, but there was a time when they did have a strategy, so that criticism is a little unfair. The strategy was very clear—order the carriers, leave Iraq, call a general election—but unfortunately it was sunk without trace by a well-aimed torpedo from my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is partly why the Government find themselves in the difficulties that they face.
	As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, today is the 63rd anniversary of Victory in Europe day. At that time, back in 1945, there were some similarities with and many considerable differences from the situation that we face today. Among the similarities was the fact that the country was pretty exhausted and pretty well drained of the resources that were needed to sustain strong military forces. However, one reason why the country was able to take comfort was the fact that it still just about had the remains of an imperial network of bases, so if its interests around the world were threatened it would be able to deploy forces from those bases. As it turned out, with decolonisation that situation did not last very long, but as it also turned out, the main threat that the United Kingdom faced for many years after the victory in 1945 was close at hand—the threat on the continent of Europe. From 1949 onwards, the focus was therefore very much on forces based nearby in friendly countries on the continent of Europe as part of the NATO alliance.
	What has happened since the end of the cold war was well encapsulated in the 1998 strategic defence review. Although there is a great deal of consensus that we need once again to review the balance between the commitments and the resources that our armed forces must respectively fulfil and have available, the situation that we faced at the time of the strategic defence review has not changed in one important respect—that if we are to apply military power around the world, and as we no longer have the network of imperial bases that we still had back in 1945, we must be able to project power on to the land from the sea. That was the basis of the concept of the strategic defence review being centred on the provision of two aircraft carriers. There need to be at least two because no ship, however powerful and well designed, can remain continuously at sea.
	I want, if I may, to press the Minister to give an answer as a follow-on to the admirably clear answer that he gave me on the question of when the orders might reasonably be expected to be placed. He said:
	"Construction of each ship will take an estimated five and a half years."—[ Official Report, 1 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 593W.]
	If that is so, and if the new in-service dates for the carriers—the date for the first one was originally supposed to be 2012; now it is 2014—are to be adhered to, and if we have to allow time for the sea trials, which will take at least a year and possibly longer, as in the case of the Type 45 destroyers, as well as time for working up before the ship really joins the fleet, then we are perilously near to the very last opportunity for ordering the carriers if those dates are not to slide off again.
	While we are on the subject of the Royal Navy, may I give the Minister an opportunity to put my mind at rest about something disturbing that I read in  The Sunday Times? It may be that the MOD has issued a response to it, but if so, I have not seen it. The article was written by Marie Woolf and headed "Pirates can claim UK asylum". It said:
	"The Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights. Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain. The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft."
	I tabled questions on that subject to the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, and in neither case has the reply explicitly made it clear whether that is the position or not. I would like reassurance that if the Royal Navy encounters any murderous brigands on the high seas, it will take the sort of action that the people of this country and seafarers worldwide are entitled to expect.
	Let me move on to some of the contributions made in the debate. The Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State focused on Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo, as we might expect, and on future threats. The Secretary of State was mainly concerned about ballistic missile defence and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was concerned about the possibility of a re-emergence of Russian offensive activities. We have to be somewhat chagrined to see the handover that took place in Russia recently; it is not quite what we had in mind when we thought that Russia was going down the democratic path.
	We need to be well aware of what threats might be, as well as present threats. That leads me to the remarks of the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), some of which I strongly agreed with. In particular, I thought that it was good of him to place it clearly on the record that, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the Liberal Democrats—I use his words—"absolutely support" the long haul in that country. I was a little uncertain where he stood on the question of withdrawal from Iraq, because he seemed to be saying that we should do it as fast as can be considered safe. I am not sure whether he is referring to safety for the troops in the process of withdrawal, in which case we could get down to the task immediately, or safety for those who would be left behind, in which case there is little difference between him and the other parties in the House. We would all like to see the troops withdrawn, in the knowledge that the time has come when the people left behind—the Iraqis—will be safe.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that we do not face an imminent threat of state-on-state warfare. He referred to what he called the warfare of this generation, meaning the counter-insurgency campaigns in which we are currently engaged. I have only two minutes left, and I would like to say a little about that thesis, because it is not the first time that I have heard it. I have heard it increasingly from senior people in the Army, and they take the view that because the Army is fighting two significant counter-insurgency campaigns with inadequate resources, we will have to denude the armed forces of their long-term ability to fight in state-versus-state conflicts in order to win the wars in which we are currently engaged.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) put his finger on it when he said that it is a matter of the defence budget. He then said—he is able to say this with the freedom of the Back Benches—that he would like to see the defence budget doubled. I am sure that I would like to see it doubled, too, and I am sure of one other thing: if my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor intends to announce an increase in the defence budget that would be brought in by a Conservative Government, he will do it at an equally lethal moment to that of his last announcement about inheritance tax, and that will not be two years out from a general election.
	Our being two years away from power is no excuse for the Government, who are currently in power. There is one thing that they are not doing—adequately resourcing the commitments in which they are engaged. We have heard that time after time, from speaker after speaker, at least on the Opposition Benches. When we get into government, the Conservative party will either put full resources into commitments or not undertake them. It cannot be done both ways. The way the Government are doing it is by fighting current wars on a peacetime defence budget, and that is imperilling the long-term future of our armed forces.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not have much time to reply to the debate, and I am sure that I will not be able to answer all the questions that have been asked.
	Our armed forces are valued and respected throughout the world. They are widely recognised as being among the most capable, the best trained and, despite what is often alleged, the best equipped in the world. As today's debate showed, many hon. Members have a deep understanding and appreciation of our military. During the time that I have had the privilege of holding my position, there has been a growing understanding and appreciation among the wider public of the demanding and dangerous operations that the military carry out on behalf of the nation.
	In Basra, significant developments have taken place. The Iraqi operation in the city has made progress in dealing with the militias and improving security and the rule of law. At the centre of those operations is the Iraqi army 14th Division—the force with which we have been so involved recently. We can take pride in the fact that our assistance, support and training have helped to bring them to the level of capability that they have reached. We must concentrate on completing our training of the 14th Division and provide effective security for the economic regeneration of the port of Umm Qasr and Basra airport, both of which have huge potential.
	In Afghanistan, I was fortunate enough to make an overnight visit to our troops in Musa Qaleh in February, only seven weeks after the town had been taken from the Taliban. Two things were striking. First, it is not only generals and brigadiers who talk about the comprehensive approach; it is understood and practised down through the ranks. The evening operational briefing was not dominated by plans for military effect; it was a case of military people talking in detail about stability, security and development, which they delivered on a daily basis. That is why progress has occurred in places such as Sangin and Musa Qaleh. Secondly, those on the front line, living in the most austere conditions, displayed the highest morale. They are using their skills, training and equipment for hard soldiering and they take a genuine pride in what they do.
	We are involved in many other areas, including Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the Falkland Islands, Colombia and the Caribbean. We are a force for good wherever we are helping, whether with post-conflict stabilisation, conflict prevention, human rights training or drug interdiction. As the Secretary of State said in opening the debate, all that activity is aimed at shaping the international environment to protect our country, defend our interests and promote our values.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked me several questions specifically about Kosovo. He asked about the length of the liability. The request is for a month, as reported to the House. Nobody has tried to hide the fact that the time can be extended, and we have the responsibility until the end of July and the start of August to continue that provision. We are not volunteering for it, and we have shared it with other nations. The Germans recently fulfilled a commitment there and the Italians have done so in the past. It is a relatively short-term commitment—I hope only a month, but it can be extended till the start of August.
	However, I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman said—and I quote him—that if we have this commitment to NATO, we must honour it, but then said, effectively, that when we knew that the commitment was going to be called upon, we should surely have found ways and means of getting out of it. I am awfully glad that he is not an ally of mine and that I do not have to be in a trench alongside him, if that is how he honours commitments of the sort he referred to, at least when he started his sentence.
	Equally astonishing was the hon. Gentleman's comment about southern Afghanistan. He said that if we had to fight to the last man, it would be to the last Briton, American and Canadian. The Danes, from a small country with a small commitment, have lost 14 people in Afghanistan and the Dutch are the lead nation in Oruzgan, along with the Canadians. The hon. Gentleman is the most extraordinary coalition-builder, going round making such comments. It is a good job that he does not work for the diplomatic service. However, we are making progress in both our main theatres of operation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned the Territorial Army. He spends an awful lot of time with the TA and I know that he is intimately involved with it. We have started the reserve review. It is not a finance-led review, but it will be difficult to square the need to provide deployable skills and get the most out of our reserves with the need to make an attractive offer to people who, at the end of the day, are volunteers. I know that my hon. Friend will understand fully the tensions involved in trying to strike that balance.
	My hon. Friend welcomed the £24 million that we recently invested in Headley Court. It is a world-class treatment centre already, but the infrastructure needs further development, so the investment is needed. He also asked about accommodation. The Department has invested significantly in accommodation in recent years. We plan to spend more than £8 billion in the next decade, of which more than £3 billion will go on improving and upgrading accommodation. Nearly 13,000 service family accommodation properties have been upgraded to the top standard of condition since 2001, with 600 more properties to be upgraded this financial year and 800 each year thereafter.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) raised, among other issues, both the fact that the Scottish Parliament has just assumed responsibility for veterans and the recent contribution that it has made. He should not be so churlish about that; indeed, we should welcome the contribution. There is a well known phrase, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned to me when he heard about the contribution, that is appropriate in this context: every little helps. We ought to welcome that contribution in that spirit.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) continued to raise his concerns about the establishment of the super-garrison, the future of Beacon barracks and the other armed forces commitments in the Stafford area. We are committed to the establishment of super- garrisons and convinced that the west midlands is a good location for one. If we can get there as soon as we can, we will do precisely that. I am certain that Stafford will play an important part in the development of any super-garrison. I will remain closely involved with the Borona project and will try to keep my hon. Friend as engaged as I can.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) asked people not to play politics with the compensation scheme. The situation is not as simple as is deliberately and repeatedly made out. We make a commitment to our injured service personnel for life. The up-front payment is but a small part of that. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is wrong to portray the scheme in the way that the media often portray it.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will try to respond to any points that I have been unable to deal with in the short time available. On the carrier, which is important, if I have the time—
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion lapsed without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 15th May, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Leigh relating to Public Accounts not later than three hours after their commencement; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.— [Liz Blackman.]

DRAFT MARINE BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 2nd April, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Marine Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown.
	 Ordered,
	That a Select Committee of eleven members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Marine Bill (Cm 7351).
	That the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 22nd July 2008.
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That Linda Gilroy, Nia Griffith, Anne Main, Martin Salter, Sir Peter Soulsby, Mr Robert Syms, Paddy Tipping, Mr Charles Walker, Joan Walley, Dr Alan Whitehead and Mr Roger Williams be members of the Committee.— [Liz Blackman.]

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Liz Blackman.]

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allocating me my first Adjournment debate in the Chamber. It is an honour and an excellent opportunity for me to raise this very important subject of Government support for organisations that support the victims of domestic violence. Tackling the problems associated with domestic violence is of great importance and interest to me and to my constituents who regularly speak to me at my constituency surgeries.
	I hope today not only to discuss the general problem of domestic violence against women, but to lay out the particular problems that women from black and minority ethnic communities face. I will also address how central and local government can support women suffering domestic violence and deal with the organisations in the voluntary sector that provide support services.
	Domestic violence still claims up to two lives a week, with around half of all female homicides being committed by a partner or ex-partner. About one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence. With those appalling statistics as a backdrop, we must all ensure that there is zero tolerance towards domestic violence and that we do all within our power to support individuals and organisations tackling this widespread and evil problem in our society.
	The causes of domestic violence are well known: male chauvinism, poor parental role models, outdated and controlling attitudes of weak men, often fuelled by alcohol and gambling problems and added to by financial pressures, and a lack of condemnation and punishment from society. Victims find it extremely difficult to get support to escape a violent situation for fear of retribution and fear of testifying against their partner in court to bring about a conviction.
	Fortunately, times are changing and I congratulate the Government and the Minister on the excellent work that is going on across government in tackling the causes, which is having a discernible impact on the problem. For example, the Government have introduced trained domestic violence prosecutors, specialist domestic violence courts and extra support for victims, which has resulted in the successful prosecution rate for domestic violence increasing from 46 per cent. in 2003 to 69 per cent. by December 2007. I endorse the Government's approach as recently laid out in the Government Equalities Office report "Tackling Violence Against Women".
	The general challenges for women suffering from domestic violence are immense, but they are added to and intensified for black and minority ethnic women, who have to deal with a host of additional difficulties. Some of these are forced marriages, fear of honour killings and the social evils of the caste system, the dowry system, human trafficking, immigration practices and cultural pressures. For those coming from outside the UK, there is also the problem of language barriers and a lack of knowledge of the system. All these pressures can result in BME women being forced into exploitative cheap labour and, in extreme circumstances, prostitution. In my constituency, those women are the majority of sufferers and I hear tragic accounts almost daily.
	I applaud the Government for the initiatives they are taking to support these women, such as through the joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office forced marriage unit, the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 that comes into effect in October this year and provides civil protection for people threatened with forced marriages, the establishment of the UK Human Trafficking Centre in Sheffield and the £2.4 million allocated over the next two years to the POPPY project, which provides safe accommodation and support for victims of trafficking escaping from prostitution. The Government's Ethnic Minorities Innovation Fund is helping to fund a number of accessibility-related services on the ground, including a holistic service for south Asian victims of violence against women.
	There is a lot of work to be done, but if the Government work in partnership with support organisations on the ground, a real difference can be made. We need to publicise, and raise awareness of, the help that women can receive and the support networks that exist.
	Organisations such as the Southall Black Sisters are working in the BME community and are reaching women who would otherwise be suffering on their own. They speak to women in their own language and with cultural sensitivity and awareness. They have real expertise and have worked closely with the Government to help draft the 2007 Act, and they are the real voice of many women who are suffering from all kinds of domestic violence.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent work he has done on behalf of his constituents since his election. He mentioned the Southall Black Sisters. As he knows, the Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into domestic violence. We have visited the Southall Black Sisters. It is vital that such organisations are adequately funded so that they can continue to do the excellent work that that organisation has done over the past 30 years.

Virendra Sharma: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and for his support for the organisation.
	Given the Southall Black Sisters' expertise and international reputation it is very concerning and shocking to note that it is currently threatened with closure because of short-sighted grant commissioning policies due to be implemented in my borough of Ealing but which are currently due for judicial review. The council has cynically used the Government's cohesion agenda to stop funding specialist services for those who historically have been the most marginalised and least able to assert their human rights.

Fiona Mactaggart: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the Government's human rights commitment does not, as I believe Ealing council has claimed, mean that there is an excuse to stop specialist expert services such as those provided by the Southall Black Sisters. Members who have spoken so far in this debate have greatly welcomed that organisation, and it should not be prevented from offering the best possible service to south Asian victims of domestic violence. I hope that the Minister will make a strong statement on that when she responds to the debate.

Virendra Sharma: I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful comments and her support.
	Other secular Asian women's domestic violence services are threatened by the cohesion-faith agenda and by the wholesale redefinition of equality so that it is no longer about protecting the historically disfranchised. Central Government need to produce robust guidance on cohesion policies and their implementation for local authorities, and should look to developing a central strategy on funding for key services, such as on domestic violence, that are not dependent on local authorities. I hope that the Minister will find a way to help that first-class organisation, which helps so many women in Southall, Ealing and beyond. I hope that Ministers will consider carefully the responses to the recent public consultation "Marriage Partners from Overseas", and I welcome the Government's intention to establish a new scheme under which victims of domestic violence with indefinite leave to remain in the UK may qualify for a contribution to their housing and living costs.
	More thinking also needs to be done to try to protect those women without leave to remain who often end up being exploited and driven into prostitution. A starting point would be speeding up the time that the Home Office takes to make decisions. I urge the Government to consider reducing fees for genuine domestic violence ILR applications.
	Another area that needs to be looked at is dowry and the exploitation of women and their families through the abuse of this system. In India, dowries are illegal but are still widely entered into and are still part of the culture amongst south Asians here in the UK. In 2005, the Indian Government passed the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In its definition of "domestic violence", the Act includes
	"harassment by way of unlawful dowry demands to the woman or her family."
	A similar clause in UK law is necessary if some of the abuses that are occurring in the UK today are to be tackled.
	I thank colleagues for their support and contributions to this debate and I now look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I am also grateful for the opportunity to raise these important issues in this debate.

Vera Baird: I shall begin by saying how much I welcome this debate and the opportunity that it presents to set out the work that the Government are doing in this area. I also wish to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma) on his consistent and clear approach to supporting this issue since he became a Member. I also compliment him on his understanding of it, and I acknowledge the key points that he has made about trafficking and dowries.
	Although I am answering the debate for the Government, I should point out that the Home Office leads on issues of domestic violence, and the lead Minister is the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker).
	Domestic violence is a devastating crime that impacts across all communities and the Government are fully committed to improving our response. It has to be said that until fairly recently the response to tackling this crime was driven by local services, especially non-governmental organisations, which provided specialist services for more than 35 years, often with little or no help from Government or the statutory sector. I acknowledge the difficult path that domestic violence service providers and the individual women and children had to tread before the Government woke up to this crime.
	I was a campaigner against domestic violence long before I came to Parliament, and I am especially proud that, since 1997, our Government have risen to the challenge and brought about a step change in how we address domestic violence. Organisations that deal with domestic violence have, of course, played a critical role in that, and we owe a significant debt to those groups who help, in particular, those who suffer domestic violence in the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. I freely acknowledge that my hon. Friend is right: the problem of domestic violence can be especially complex and difficult to tackle in those communities.
	We are working with Southall Black Sisters—the organisation that everyone has mentioned—on a range of issues regarding domestic violence. I can confirm that the Home Office has recently identified a small amount of funding that will go to Southall Black Sisters for 2008-09 to strengthen its business management practices.

Fiona Mactaggart: One thing that many people outside this House will not understand is the fact that although Southall Black Sisters is a local organisation, the level of expertise that it has developed in dealing with these issues means that it is a national resource. Will the Solicitor-General ensure that her colleagues in Government understand the extent to which this apparently local organisation is providing a national resource in connection with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma) has so eloquently raised?

Vera Baird: There are two points, are there not? First, Southall Black Sisters provides local services, and secondly, the organisation works with the Home Office and has historically offered a national resource for policy input. I am sure that that is partially reflected in the fact that some moneys have been found to support its business practices.

Keith Vaz: I recognise that we all have to be cautious because of the ongoing judicial review proceedings, but will my hon. and learned Friend confirm what the Select Committee was told when we took evidence? As she will know, we are taking evidence on the whole issue of domestic violence. Will she confirm that it is not part of the Government's vision that specialist services should not be supported? Some have said that because of the Government's policy, there cannot be individual funding for such organisations. That is not the case, is it?

Vera Baird: My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall, have both made the same point. I intend to set out my response to that point in exact accordance with what they both said.
	Let me touch on some of the other things that we are doing about domestic violence. It is important to contextualise the debate. We have a national domestic violence delivery plan, through which we intend to ensure that tackling domestic violence is mainstream in all public services. It is also an important plank on which we want to create a more stable set of conditions for the voluntary and community sectors to continue their role as our partners and our critical friends. That is a role that SBS already plays.
	We set ourselves five key goals, and key planks in the plan to assist with meeting those goals are: the ongoing expansion of specialist domestic violence courses, to which my right hon. and hon. Friends alluded; the introduction of independent domestic violence advisers who support complainants in bringing legal proceedings; and the introduction of multi-agency risk assessment conferences that protect people at high risk of serious harm or homicide from repeat domestic violence. Those measures are all underpinned by the Government's new public service agreements, which prioritise serious violence and include domestic violence for the first time ever.
	Let me give some examples of the funding that the Government have provided to domestic violence organisations and other services. The Ministry of Justice has funded independent domestic violence advisers to the tune of £3 million this year. We have provided £1.85 million in funding for multi-agency risk assessment conferences in the past year. We have committed £6.5 million to ensure that we can roll out both those essential components of our domestic violence plan nationwide.
	We are also funding Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse—CAADA—which is a training organisation. We need not merely to roll out the schemes nationwide but to ensure that there is appropriate and accredited training so that there is consistency in the quality of service across the country. We continue to fund a matrix of helplines: the 24-hour national domestic violence freephone helpline; the men's advice line for male victims; Broken Rainbow, a service for those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities; and the RESPECT phone line for perpetrators, which offers advice to those seeking help.
	While I am on the subject of funding, I want to mention that we have devolved funding for local domestic violence services, as well as for services in respect of all other crime, to local decision makers and partnerships. Funding for the local services provided by Southall Black Sisters must be determined locally. I cannot say a great deal more about that because, as everyone has mentioned, leave has been granted for Southall Black Sisters to take the local authority to judicial review, so we must not consider that matter further. However, in general, decisions on funding for services are based on local areas identifying a need and putting that into their priorities for improvement. The voluntary sector is, of course, key in providing specialised and focused services.
	Let me say this as clearly as I can: the gender equality duty, put into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by the Equality Act 2006, plays an important role in getting public authorities to consider what forms of positive action they should take in tackling violence against women. However, it seems that the very misunderstanding to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have alluded has arisen, and some people think that the duty somehow means that women-only specialist services, such as those that provide support for women victims of domestic violence, should no longer be provided. I am pleased to take this opportunity to make it clear that such an interpretation of the duty is wrong.

Keith Vaz: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Vera Baird: I wonder whether I could finish this important point first. The code of practice makes it clear that the duty is not about providing the same service for men and women in all cases. It is up to each public authority to decide the priorities for its gender equality schemes, but such authorities can be proactive—the Government would encourage them to be—in tackling violence against women, if they wish, through specialist services.
	I do not know whether this is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East was going to make, but let me add that similarly, there is no reason why the race equality duty should prevent authorities from catering for the special needs of racial groups in respect of domestic violence services, as in the case that we are discussing. If that is not what he was going to say, I give way to him.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma) has led an energetic campaign on behalf of Southall Black Sisters, and I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her clarity this afternoon. What she is basically saying is that Councillor Stacey and Ealing council can fund that organisation if they want to.

Vera Baird: I have said what I have said. Let me put it this way: nothing from the Government says the council cannot do so. Yes, they can fund that organisation if they choose to do so.
	We need to do more to ensure that the victims of domestic violence from black and minority ethnic communities benefit from our interventions. We have made that a priority for this year. An example of our commitment is the development of a specific honour-based violence action plan to address the specific forms of domestic violence that affect some of our BME communities. We shall expand the work of the forced marriage unit to ensure that potential victims of forced marriage can speak out with the certainty that they will get the help that they need.
	More work is needed, however, with local community leaders to condemn the archaic and repugnant practices that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall has alluded to. We are also planning a series of regional and local seminars, starting in the summer, to publicise the work of the forced marriage unit and highlight the emerging strategies of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service in ensuring that the criminal justice system responds appropriately to protect victims and bring perpetrators to justice.
	A step-by-step guide for women in black and minority ethnic communities who are the victims of domestic violence will soon provide what we hope is practical advice on the steps that victims can take to protect themselves and their children. We hope that, in producing that guidance, we will have taken on board cultural issues, which can prove problematic.
	Another example that my hon. Friend referred to, and on which we have been working with both the statutory and the voluntary sector, is to try to find ways of supporting victims with no recourse to public funds. People come in and are dependent on someone who undertakes to support them, but they are then tied to that person if domestic violence starts to become an issue. In March, we announced a new scheme for victims of domestic violence in exactly that situation whose applications for indefinite leave to remain are successful. I acknowledge that we need to speed up the process, and work is being done to do that for people applying for indefinite leave to remain. If their applications are successful, they may qualify for a contribution towards their housing and living costs.
	The proposals under the new scheme will strengthen the way in which domestic violence cases are considered, enabling vulnerable victims to obtain the support that they need. We have been working closely with the No Recourse to Public Funds Network to get a national picture of the issue and we will expand on the details of this programme of work later in the spring.
	I am proud to say that over the years, I have worked with Southall Black Sisters on a number of occasions, and I am pleased to say that the Government continue to work with the group and are pleased to receive its input. I am glad that we have been able to resource it in a limited way to ensure that its business practices can be made good. I hope that I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in the gender or the race policies—nor in anything else that one can readily think of in the Government's policy or legislation—can give any local authority any reason not to fund such specialist services if it chooses to do so.
	We have all come a long way in trying to tackle domestic violence, but there are many things left to do. We will not relax our efforts.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty -five minutes past Six o'clock.